Fermented foods...........

This isn't all about stuff that is, apparently, bad for us or something that needs to be slagged off.

Some of it is about learning new things about stuff we (ok, me/I) like.

This week, there was the first in a new series of "Trust me, I'm a doctor" (the main presenter is indeed a doctor, and it seems that the other presenters are also medical practitioners - which is good in many ways).

One of the subjects they touched on was fermented foods. Now I'm interested in them a bit, because some months back, I was digging around the net and came across a recipe for making my own sauerkraut.

Years ago, I bought some commercially produced sauerkraut and found myself a bit "underwhelmed" with it - I didn't dislike it but it didn't (from memory) make me think it was something I could routinely include in my food intake.

Whereas, the recipe for making my own seemed straight forward (take that as meaning easy, so even a lazy git like me could make it), so why not.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It also pointed me toward something I could eat on a regular basis that helps with more fibre, isn't particularly high in calories and anecdotally "good for me".

Now it seems that the programme has explained why that might be the case, in an easily understood (if a little patronising) way. It explained about the health benefits of keffir for the first to bits of programme about this, then more widely about fermented foods in general.

I still couldn't see the point of things like keffir other than for preservation of raw materials like milk ("water keffir" is even more WTF? unless if it was developed/produced/discovered by accident and meant that it kept the water part drinkable after say, travelling a long distance). Of course, it now seems that there's many benefits from eating fermented foods, though to be more specific, home made fermented foods as commercially made ones don't have quite the same beneficial levels - the person said that this is likely because of pasteurisation required by some legal and some marketing reasons.

I certainly can't (at the moment) see the point of kombucha, which is a fermented tea sort of drink i.e. was there some practical reason for this, one that I can't see or think of, or maybe it was found that it was a time saving thing so those who drink it regularly didn't have to stop and make tea, or something like that ?

I find myself eating various types of home mad sauerkraut because I like it. I don't believe in fad diets of any sort. If (like me) we find ourselves getting a bit porky, it's generally more about how much shit we put in our mouth and how little exercise we take (often for genuine reasons and not just because we don't like exercising) etc.

I can't say I've enjoyed all the sauerkraut types I've made so far, like I didn't dislike but I didn't enjoy the pineapple, ginger and turmeric flavoured one that many on one of the facebook pages I read seem to enjoy. Those three main flavours are ones I normally like, but the resulting fermented taste didn't seem right. Maybe because I'd got the wrong notion of how it's likely to taste in my head. After all, when it comes to making my wines and meads, I read lots of different recipes and info on different types, but some of the flavour ingredients that people choose I find are to do with them enjoying the ingredient in a more natural form, yet they then think that they'll retain the same taste - which they don't (and neither did I from the sauerkraut recipe for the pineapple etc etc).

I'm thinking whether it's to do with my not either enjoying or just not understanding the sort of flavour changes that come with fermentation ?

I find myself preferring tradtional combo's of flavour, than trying to use all at my disposal to see it I can come up with a flavour/taste that will be enjoyed by millions making me rich etc. No, I stick mostly to traditional combo's because they are widely understood and enjoyed (seems that more often than not, those traditional combo's work well together because one compliments the other, often on "chemical" basis like bitter and sweet or sweet and sour etc).

So, WTF! I'm happy to try different products and flavour combo's, but only if I can see the point. Hence I'll happily carry on making sauerkraut with "Indian spices", or maybe the more traditional flavours like caraway seeds, peppercorns and fennel seeds. I've got a batch on the go at the moment which purports to be like "easy Kimchi", but I'll have to see how that comes out. I'm intending to try and make some "proper" kimchi, if and when I can find the pak choi and dikon raddish (I've found where I can get stuff like the Korean chilli powder/paste), so we'll see..........

Hey ho!

This one is less about some shit that's been included in our food etc.

Having been brought up with the mentality of "he's a growing lad" and being routinely fed generous portion sizes, I find it hard not to eat too much.

It can be quite surprising to learn what actual portion sizes should be when it comes to an accurate calorific value of any given food.

So with that in mind, I'm lucky that my partner serves us smaller portions, but I also know that it's in my mind that I might be still hungry after a meal, so rather than picking at things I shouldn't I've been learning about stuff that is reputed to be good for us, but isn't necessarily high calorie.

Fermented foods are often done with salt i.e. one that comes easily to mind is sauerkraut. When I first tried some, it was "factory produced" in a jar. I can recall thinking that it wasn't too bad, just not something that I'd go out of my way to get again. Yet not so long ago, we had some veg in the fridge that was getting on a bit, so I had a dig around and as most of the veg that was degrading etc, was cabbage I found some recipes on the net and had a read.

A basic sauerkraut is just chopped cabbage, a few spices and salt. Basically it's 1 tablespoon of salt to 1.5 pounds of shredded cabbage - I make it a little lower i.e. 1 tablespoon of salt to 1 kilo of shredded cabbage. The cabbage can be shredded by hand (obviously remove any wilted and manky looking outer leaves, then quarter the cabbage and remove the stalk (but if you're patient, you can always grate that as well, as it's perfectly edible) or by machine/processor. Put it in a bowl, add the requisite amount of salt, use hands to mix the salt in evenly while giving the cabbage a good "scrunching to". Then just cover it and leave it for up to 6 hours. This helps some of the cabbage juice/water to come out making a brine. Then it's just a case of mixing in a table spoon of peppercorns and teaspoon of caraway and fennel seeds in. Mix the spices in to spread them throughout the cabbage.

The cabbage mixture is then packed into sanitised/sterilised jars - I use the end of a rolling pin to pack the veg mix in tightly. As you pack the cabbage in, you get some brine coming out on the top, which is fine. Then you just need something to keep all the cabbage below the level of the brine - I have some small glass jars (Lidl picnic portions of Pate) that fit in nicely. Some have suggested that the Gu pudding range make some small chocolate puddings in little glass dishes that work well. Hell you could even do like they do in Korea for Kimchi and find an appropriate sized beach pebble (easily sanitised/sterilised and just as easily reused for future batches). If you are using screw top type kilner (or Mason in America) jars, then once you see bubbles coming up through the kraut, you'll have to relieve the pressure (often called "burping" the jars) by unscrewing the lids gently (over a sink or bowl is handy as you can sometimes get some of the juice/brine pushed up and out). If you have the flip/clip top type jars it's a bit easier as the pressure will build up but then force the excess pressure out through the rubber seal - so just keep the jars standing in a bowl for any liquid that makes it out.

After about 1 to 2 weeks the ferment will have subsided and you can move the jar to the fridge (did I mention that during the ferment I keep them at room temp - in a bowl, on the floor of our larder). The chilling will halt any last fermentation and you can start digging in. If you leave it at room temp, it won't do any harm just that the fermented taste will develop to be a little stronger.

I like it with sausage in a sandwich or roll, maybe with cheese in a toasted sandwich, or even as an extra veg side portion with main meal. It's quite versatile and can be used where you might use a vinegar based sauce or condiment - it's not as acidic tasting and being only cabbage, spices and salt, will be lower calorie than sauces etc......

Hum ? Food for thought maybe ?

A recent programme which alleges to tell us which of the regional/national diets (not exact, individual ones, generally ones tied to location and it's culture) is best.

Now in fairness, I might have missed the point a bit as I didn't manage to catch the whole programme - I missed about the first 10 or 15 minutes. Whether than means I missed some explanation of the criteria of "best", I don't know.

Whether the conclusions are drawn purely from sources like WHO data on various illnesses, life expectancy and death rates I can't say.

What the programme did for me, was to demonstrate that there's no real, single answer. If you took the differences in the actual make up of the diet of the top 10, then it would seem that it's about money. More specifically economic inequality.

It showed to me, that in some places, it was about what was available to the people of that region/nation i.e. that in some places, it was more about what could be grown on the available land. The available land might vary and depend on the relative wealth of the individual/family thereof. In turn, what could be grown for consumption was relative to geographical location.

This doesn't take into account of political and geo-economic factors i.e. that X is easily grown in one place, so lets grow lots then make political deals for the "markets" to buy lots of the excess and then sell it to populations where it wasn't routinely available.

This point and many others were obviously used to work out this league table of diet.

If the programme is available to you for viewing, I'd encourage you to take a look. There is some obvious targets for the good, bad and indifferent. There are few surprises too.

A bigger problem is, that it's a populist bit of programming. Yes it may be that the programmes producers, presenters et al, are "food evangelists" trying and genuinely believing their content, but this whole subject is too big and important to try and put it into such a basic form.

Yes, it could be as easy as taking the currently held and understood knowledge about various foodstuffs, then "cherry picking" the best elements to try and get to a health based pinnacle. Equally, could that idea end up in giving us cross contamination of types/styles of foods that provide a negative effect ?

I'll just go with the position that it seems to be the case that the industrialisation of food production to make it cheaper and more convenient is a negative. Yes, it may be the case that many of the "E numbers" that are used by the food industry are indeed naturally produced, but if you take the analogy of difference between medicine and poison being the dosage or amount, then it would make sense to only use enough of anything to make "it" taste good when it's made in the normal (traditional ?) way. Routine seems to be important i.e. 3 meals a day but with no snacking in between (is that routine or maybe it's cultural/traditional ?). That where excessive amounts of an ingredient need to be considered as to whether it's really needed or not (sugar and salt are two good examples) i.e. what to the ingredients actually bring to a given recipe/food ?

Balance seems important to. Too much of anything is likely not healthy. The base mix of protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals etc appear to be a good mix. Many veggies contain enough of those. There are some diets that do have different make up than that, if you consider that that base mix is a "holy grail".

The programme is worth a watch, if for no other reason, to explain that "your way, isn't the ONLY way". That there are some ingredients we should consider reducing and others that would be beneficial in greater amounts........

Another interesting read (food allergies or food intolerance).....

Food allergies ? or food intolerance ?


What's the difference ? Nicely explained in the above link, along with a lot of the bullshit that surrounds such issues.

And yes, I do have a friend who is a coeliac so have a vague understanding of it. Like-wise, I have a couple of friends who're type 1 diabetics and understand about the insulin and sugar thing (of course, there's lots about these kind of conditions that I don't know or understand - just that I have enough knowledge to make sure that I don't give them anything that might be an issue to them).....

The article explains a lot of stuff, including why a lot of this is complete bollocks. Not in the sense that these conditions aren't real, but about how many people have/suffer from them.

If they took the appropriate/proper route to find out, then the medical experts would tell them to fuck off, like the thick hypochondriac fools that they are........

The thing that the article alludes to that makes me wonder, is that if we, as a species, have been consuming such foods for millennia,  then apart from those who do have a properly diagnosed form of say coeliac disease or maybe peanut allergy etc, why is it that so many people claim to have such issues ? apart from them having an increased level of gullibility to advertising ?

Hey ho!

no surprise there then........

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/21/a-feast-of-engineering-whats-really-in-your-food

No surprise there then eh !

Another interesting article.........

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/15/truth-about-miracle-foods-chia-seeds-coconut-oil

What can you derive from that ?

IMO, not only are the "normal" food nazis trying to get us to eat shit, as long as there's a good mark up, but the health food nazis are just as bad.

Personally, I'd happily be the person behind the firing squad machine gun for any of these fuckers found to be lying....... You'd only need to do a couple and bingo, they'd stop all that shit...........

Another occasional post......

So what shit are the bastards gonna try and make us eat next ? Have a look to see, and you'll likely realise, you never know which one of the food nazis will try to get crap down your throat, just by changing the name or brand........ Their combined advertising budgets would likely cure most third world hunger........

Another sceptic ?

http://www.coachcalorie.com/food-advertising-tricks/

this is another good link if you're sceptical about the claims of some (? all) of the big food manufacturers.

Personally I just try and minimise the amount of dog shit ingredients I eat.

More mis-leading terminology.....

Ok, so I don't post new stuff here often enough.

Sorry, but its hard to find the time to post, let alone doing the research, etc.

Hence the occasional nature of updates. Not that it doesn't remain one of my "soap box" subjects, but in truth, "big food" continues to use confusing terms, descriptions and other literary and pictorial devices (IMO lies) to convince you to put your money in their wallet.

Now a relatively new (here in the UK anyway) are PDO's and PGI's (protected designator of origin and protected geographical indicators).

These terms emanate from the EU, in theory to protect "heritage" products from unfair competition. I seem to recall, the idea being based on the "AOC" accreditation used in France.

In truth, the French system is much more strict, than the criteria applied to PDO'S and PGI'S. They say where it can be made to use a given name, as well as, in most cases, the ingredients that can be used and where the ingredients must come from (I have a notion that there might be some "scope" for variation, with some products, but to my line its the best of a bad bunch).

Whereas, PDO'S must be made in the accredited area, though there seems nothing to say that the ingredients must be source there. PGI'S are even more "woolly".

I've just seen a tv programme that used the analogy of the "Cornish pasty" to highlight the rather strange way this kind of shit is worked out.

The presenter used a chap who works in a pub on the Devon/Cornwall border. He made one pasty on the cornish side of the border, with internationally source ingredients, and the same recipe, but with ingredients source entirely from Cornwall, on the Devon side of the border.

So which one can legally be called a "Cornish" pasty ? Well the one made on the cornish side of the border of course. What are you ? Stupid ?...... Seriously though, the tv programme people then conducted a rather unscientific taste test in the pasty makers pub, to find that all the people did select the pasty made in Devon with Cornish ingredients as their favourites.

Now this example just shows that while the PDO/PGI scheme was brought in with good intent, the compromises made to try and keep everyone happy are just that. Compromises, mainly to help business, which will still leave many consumers confused, yet paying more for that confusion, as these products will most likely, be sold at a premium rate.

The consumer gets poorer, while business gets richer. So no surprise there then eh!........

See, if you only ate the foods in this link, there's enough nutrients, fibre, etc etc for anyone to eat healthily.

Of course, you need to apply some thought, because some of them are bland as hell, some require considerable cooking methods (the kidney beans come to mind here), some are fine eaten alone, but all require moderation in the amounts.

You could easily just mix some as like a salad of some sort, but IMO, then such a meal should only be dressed with a little oil and vinegar dressing. Not bucket loads of mayo (which can be eaten in small quantities). Plus it depends on what the list of foods are cooked with, for example, the pearl barley, to my mind, is ideal for using in stews, particularly lamb. Even then, it's often about portion control.

The adage "you are, what you eat" isn't far wrong. If you're a fat bastard, then it's either the quantity of what you're eating, or the "quality" i.e. high sugar, high fat, high complex carbs, etc.

Pretty much anything can be eaten while staying healthy and retaining an appropriate weight/BMI, but if it's high in whatever might be the current target on the health nazi's hit list, then just eat a small quantity/portion and mix that with other stuff that is "good for you" (small amount of cream with that fresh fruit etc etc).

Rocket science eh!

Damn! it's a hell of a long time since I posted to this blog.......

Anyhow, I was just stumbling about when I found this.....

It's basically some of what my view still is, in regard to the "world food industry".

Yes, it's focused on the US, but it's still valid commentary......

I'm guessing but half of why we let "them" get away with it, is because we're lazy fuckers - and convenience is all!

It's certainly why the main food retailers here in the UK are so successful (success being relative to a point of view......)

It might be a while before I post again, as life isn't doing me any favours right now. I don't work in the food (dairy) industry any longer, so my POV has now changed to that of an outsider.

That still doesn't mean I don't care........

p.s. Oh and just for info, anyone who might find this blog, I've just had a quick check and the links still seem to be working...... so IMO, it's still worth a read if only to understand (if you give a toss) my point of view about food etc.....

I found this. Funny as fuck! Give it a look.

Pip pip!

I know that I don't post here often, mainly because I don't get time to read the papers or watch much television these days (if I could "drop" enough on the lottery to pay the mortgage, I'd probably be able to study full time and still read the papers/watch telly - sorry, a digression into fantasy land there).

The point of this post, is that I've just seen an advert for a "new" type of bread. Part of the "Kingsmill" range maybe??? I don't recall. What I do remember is that it's apparently white bread with "all the goodness of brown bread" so "the kids love it". Called "50/50" I think.

What a load of fucking rubbish. If you want bread with even basic nutritional value too feed to your kids, then you should probably be feeding them brown bread of some sort, probably a brown bread that's been produced by a "local" baker. Not some "pappy" white shit that's had any possible "goodness" processed out of it (apart from the carbohydrates of course) in one of the big manufacturers factories.

If you want to try a bit harder, then it would probably be a brown bread with various seeds as part of the mix i.e. often referred to as "multi-grain". The brown flour element of that bread being some sort of "wholemeal" flour.

Whats wrong with the product I alluded too above? Well why are they having to re-add the fibre element back into whats really the same pappy white steamed shit I mentioned earlier ? The advertising hook being "that the kids love it" ?

Food isn't something that nature really teaches us about - OK, not quite true. The basics of sweet, sour, salt and bitter are nature. The actual foods that we eat are "nurture" i.e. we learn to like them.

This then produces the paradox of how we learn what we like to eat ? It's my understanding that babies take the queue from their mothers facial expressions - with the taste i.e. the salt, sweet, sour and bitter bit from nature.

So what am I driving at ? To get the kids eating what you want them to eat i.e. to give them a balanced diet, as any sensibly minded parent would want, then you need to give them the balanced stuff, but with a nice smiley face (and maybe even the yum yum noises) whether you like it or not.

Then when they are onto the solids, they eat what they're given. Reserve the sweet, shitty, tooth rotting, fat making, sugary rubbish as a treat. Not because they won't eat anything else. If they're hungry enough, they'll eat it. They'll get used to it and eventually it will become a normal part of their diet.

Sure, it can be flavoured in many ways i.e. herbs, spices, etc etc, just not sugar or other "energy dense" products. Theres nothing wrong with introducing some of the alleged "bad" things later, though that balance is quite important of course.

Look at our European neighbours ? The nearest is France isn't it. Sure they have the reputation for cooking everything in butter (oh, bad, bad butter). The difference is, that it's also known to be quite well balanced - I also notice that it would appear that theres been a lot about the size of portions i.e. theirs tend to be between 25 and 30 % smaller. Which might have something to do with why they have less obesity and heart related problems than we do in the UK.

It seems to me, that we in the UK, suffer from a similar problem to "those", who are currently accused of causing the "terrorism" from the islamic world. That being, "they" would rather believe a muslim who is telling them lies, than a "westerner" who is telling them the truth about something. While we seem to rather believe fucking adverts and influences from the US, and any other shit put out by the "vested interests", than we would from a properly qualified and accredited nutritionist or other similar "food professional". The result, fat little cunt kids that bleed the ears of their parents about what they do and don't like, who are unfit, overweight and suffering from diabetes (no slur on "proper" diabetics - as that can occur as a natural (genetic???) health problem - my "best friend" from my school days is "type A" diabetic, his mother was diabetic - and consequently feed both him and his sister a good balanced diet - which still didn't stop his sister being diagnosed as insulin dependant in her mid teens either - hence my "genetic???" comment).

As for the parents? Proper food i.e. not processed dog shit, usually works out cheaper, though it may take a bit longer to prepare than the two minutes it takes to "do" a high sugar/salt/fat etc, processed "ready meal". And all you will have succeeded in doing is adding to another "coffin nail" into your childs' diet, and helped some middle/upper class, tory fat cat fucker, get richer through the shares that they own in the big boys/vested interests of the world of food manufacturing.

And no, I'm not any kind of food professional, but just an ordinary person who wants to take care of what I eat. I'm interested, so I try to read and understand as much as possible. I'm no angel, but about 95% of what I eat can be described as decent food. I still eat too much of it and could loose a stone or two, but I try to keep "shit" to a minimum!

It ain't rocket science, most of the information is "out there" and theres enough of it freely available, for you to give your kids a balanced, "shit free" diet instead of abusing them into type B diabetes, heart and other circulation related health problems, just so satisfy your own fucking laziness!

ttfn.

This (link removed - but it pointed to "the truth about food" by the BBC) is what I've been watching recently.

Quite informative. Some of it has turned out to be "common sense" (yeah ok, I know theres no such thing really because what might be "common sense" to me, might not be to you). Some of it has proved very interesting, inasfaras, they've disproved or proved quite a few "urban myth" type things.

Sugar "rush" in kids ? appears to be complete bollocks.

Detox diets ? Again, complete bollocks.

Aphrodisiacs ? Don't work, hence complete bollocks.

Now I haven't checked out the BBC site completely to see if theres a summary of either the complete series or individual programmes, but suffice to say, even though I don't post to this blog very often, it doesn't mean that I've lost interest. I haven't.

It's mainly because I don't have enough time to go through the unbelievably large amount of info that there is on the net and in other media sources. So much of what I'd like to say has already been posted/published elsewhere.

And yes, I do still believe that the so called "food manufacturers" are a bunch of money grabbing poisoning bastards, who will do just about anything to get us to eat the shit that they "produce" (more like excrete if you ask me), and charge us for the privilege.

Now I'm certainly not saying that we all need to become raging veggie nutters, or raw food obsessives. Just that you SHOULD read the label on any packet that you buy.

I'm also not saying that all the "e numbers" that is found on foods produced in the EU are toxins that must be avoided at all costs.

I'm saying that if you're not sure about something, at least look it up (on the net - if you're reading this you've got access to a computer) and see if you can track down what "it" is.

A good example is "Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil". What the fucks that? Well it's vegetable oil thats been treated with hydrogen so that it changes from the good old "runny stuff" to a solid material - not unsimilar looking to lard. Though it seems that thats not the only change it undergoes.

It would seem that somehow the amount of "trans fatty acids" in it increases (I think thats what they're called - it's too late at night for me to go checking my facts). These, apparently, are connected with cholesterol problems.

Theres another "e number" (no I can't remember the actual number), which might, to the completely paranoid, seem rather dicey. It's actually just concentrated lemon juice - made in such a way that it's more convenient to the manufacturing (food and other products) industry. So I'm guessing that it's probably not a problem.

The EU probably have a list somewhere, of all the various "e numbers" and what they actually are, and hopefully, what they do.

If you looked at, say, a tin of baked beans. To start, the actual can they come in. The canning process was developed originally so that foodstuffs could be kept longer (though the lead that was used to seal the tins originally, was toxic - and no, they don't use lead anymore). The beans, if they come from either of the "americas" probably have some sort of genetic modification. The tomatoe sauce ? Ha! just how much of it is actually tomatoe? how many other "flavour enhancers", " stabilisers" and "preservatives" are there in it ??

Exactly! In a product that most of the "western world" has been eating for decades. Much to the delight of various of the major food manufacturing conglomerates. A real "money spinner". Not to mention, a contributor to environmental problems as some of the growers (of the beans) hack down swathes of the amazon every year just to grow more of the beans (soya, haricot and others).

Right, I need a drink and then some sleep. So ttfn!

Watching as much "food TV" as I do, preparing "quality" meals isn't that hard. Plus, what with all the media interest about how people in the UK are catching up with the US, when it comes to being a bunch of fat bastards, it makes me wonder.

The other day, I had to accompany my parter, Clare, to the local branch of Tesco's, we got the stuff we were short of, and stood in the queue for the tills. While waiting, I glanced around and the people who were arranging payment for their shopping were both women (unsuprisingly). The thing that I did notice, was that they were both fucking huge. Real big fat fuckers!

Then I started watching the items that they were purchasing. I wasn't suprised that they were both such fat bastards, the amount of shit that the checkout person was scanning across the sensor had to be seen to be believed.

All prepackaged, fat/salt/sugar /additive laden rubbish. Even if they happened to have large families, there was enough calories to feed a small African nation!

Clare tried to justify their actions, with that "they probably don't have time" excuse. Well these days, that just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. They'd probably have "more time" if they got of their fat fucking arses and stopped filling their brains with shit from the TV.

Ok, it does take a bit more time to make a proper meal, that it does to open a packet of shit and microwave it.

But why to the food manufacturers use so much salt/sugar/fat/whatever ? because when you "process" food, it becomes bland and hideous looking pap! So they add salt/sugar/fat/additives, to make it "taste nice", and to look better, oh and so that it has a longer shelf life (yes, ok, lets be real about it, to make more fucking money).

Unfortunately, it's the consumer that doesn't seem to realise that this kind of "food" is slowly but surely killing them.

Of course, it's the likes of the food manufacturer that have realised, that while the quality of their product, might be shit, it tastes good - so they are falling back on that old trick of nature, that if somethings pleasing to the taste, it's probably safe too eat, if it tastes bad then it's probably not safe.

We Brits, are so obsessed with out petty minded xenophobia, that we haven't worked out why other European nations are so fussy about what they buy for food. To start with, it seems that their societies are a lot less fucked up than the UK. Less obsessed with time, or the lack of. So it's taking the bastards that make the shit that a large proportion of the UK eat, longer to squeeze the same levels of profit out of them.

And no, I rant about this kind of thing all the time, but I'm not perfect. Some of the shit does really taste good and as a result, occassionally I crack and have to have a quick "fix" of something. Often it will be chocolate, sometimes it will be that real processed dogshit, a pot noodle. The very spicy ones are fucking lovely, but whenever I'm about to crack - especially with the pot noodle, I look at the price, and I remember that at about a £ a shot, it's cheaper to go to the little Chinese store in town, and buy their instant noodles instead. More varied flavours and about half the price. If I then still want the noodles tasting more hot/spicey I can always put some fresh chilli in.

So come on, you fat bastards, take the time to make "proper" meals, and leave the instant processed dogshit where it belongs, either on the supermarket shelves or in the rubbish bin.

Oh!, the older I get, the harder it is, to get off my soap box !

Bugger, caught out again! No, nothing that I've seen in the media recently has grabbed my attention enough to reproduce/comment on it here, but I've taken to watching a programme on the UKTVFOOD satelite channel, called "food uncut".

Food Uncut is quite an interesting concept, it's only half an hour long, but tries to cover a wide variety of subjects. Yesterday, they had an article about food blogs.

The annoying thing was, that they only seemed to focus on apparently well known food blogs. Well they might be well known to some people but not too me. Maybe thats my fault though, as I don't really get the time too sit at the computer and search for food blogs. Or food articles per se (hell, I'm writing this during the Sweden Vs England match at half time).

Ha! I mean, even the latest edition of the aforementioned programme is recorded on my "Sky" PVR device. It can take a day or two for me to see the recorded material.

The article on food blogs was a little like the programme. It's aimed at a curious demographic. I'm sometimes confused who it's directed toward, but it appears to be mainly a "middle class" thing - even though the take up of digital TV has a higher level amongst the "working classes" (apparently).

The programmes mainly static "anchor" presenters, seem to have a good understanding of their subject. Though I sometimes wonder what actually qualifies them to talk about the subject - except for the reasonably regular "guest" chef - Jean Cristophe Novelli (apologies if I spelled the name wrong) who is a reasonably well known (and michelin starred, I understand) TV chef.

The other two ? Stephan something or other, well I first saw him on the Channel 4 programme called "full on Food" (I think). Actually, thats where I saw Merrilees, who seemed to take over from Stephan there. They then turned up on food uncut.

I suspect that she is also an experienced chef, but I don't know as so far I haven't looked to see if she has her own website/biog'/whatever.

Perhaps it's just me being lazy. Or perhaps, because I'm not fazed by people with some sort of show biz' notoriety, that I don't give a fuck, but I suppose I'll have to look!

Apart from that, the programme is quite good, and reasonably informative - though some of the recipes are a little highbrow. Some ideas of what might make "normal" food a little more interesting would be good.

Not all of us have these "top" restraunts/delli's/fishmongers/etc etc just round the corner like the more affluent parts of London seem to have. So some of the ingredients are a bit hard to find.

Maybe it's just that I've missed the point of the programme. Hey! I'm not perfect. I just don't like the idea that we have to eat so much shit i.e. what the supermarkets would prefer to feed us because it looks pretty and comes in an appealing box (and the accompanying price tag).

I will also try to keep this updated more often though!

Pip Pip!

Haven't posted for a while, but was prompted too, because yesterday I looked in our food cupboard and found myself facing a tin of "Heinz Spaghetti Hoops" (spaghetti rings, I think, in the US).

It was the writing on the top of the label that made me think some. It said "check out my salt levels".

OK, fine. It has good salt levels. Maybe, I can't honestly say that I know exactly what the correct amount of salt (on a daily intake basis) is.

So I started looking around. Now the conclusion that I came to, is something I've sort of been aware of for ages anyway, but it seemed to be confirmed.

Most foods, particularly processed ones, have easily identifiable amounts of salt, sugar and fat, in varying combinations. OK, but as soon as "they" try to change something about that food, then "they" often have to up to quantity of one or both of the others to compensate.

Fats and salt aren't really that palatable on their own - Ok sugar is nice but you often find that it's bloody awful to eat on it's own. They are mainly used as flavour enhancers.

The problem seems to be that if you eat too many foods with too much of one of those three things in them, then theres possible health complications i.e. too much sugar is obvious, you end up as a fat fucker with bad teeth. Too much salt and you end up with arteries made of steel and rocketing blood pressure. Too much fat and you end up as a fat fucker but with clogged arteries.

Is there an answer ? Well I suppose the answer is "sort of".

Sort of what ? Well, sort of, eat a balanced diet, and maybe learn enough so that you've got some idea of how many calories a portion of X contains - yes, you will need to have some idea of just how much a portion is i.e. weight and/or size.

That way, you can enjoy something that is say, high fat but you only eat a very small amount. The same applies to fat and salt.

Part of the reason that people in the US have a reputation for being fat bastards, is that not only are they eating the wrong foods, but too fucking much of them as well. They seem to have embraced "convenience" like nowhere else. Of course, the UK is doing it's best too catch up, but fortunately such evidence from the US is going some way to providing us with a clue as to the results of poor diet.

Most food, when it's in it's natural state, already contains enough sugar/salt/fat's. They're present naturally. It's just that they're not as salty/sweet/savoury/whatever. So maybe, cook your veggies without any additional salt. Then taste them, and add just a little too taste. Fruit? well again, taste the fucking thing. If it's not sweet enough for you, just add a little extra sweetner (artificial or natural). Fats a difficult. It can often be hard to decide if something has got enough (breads easy enough, only put enough butter on it so that it's spread very thinly, if you must). Other things? well, if you follow recipes then stick to them. Then at least you can try to judge how much of something you eat is likely to contain.

Perhaps I'm lucky inasfaras my partner Clare and myself, eat a very balanced diet. She's very conscientious, whereas I tend to eat too much by way of quantity (the quality is there).

I don't want to stop you eating what you like, I just want to encourage you to think about which foods, and how much, you're actually putting in your mouth. And no, I don't accept any shit excuses, like, "but the kids won't eat anything else" etc etc. If you're the parents, then the fucking kid(s) eat whats put in front of them - don't give them the choice of pick and choose. They're kids afterall, they're learning to be adults. If you don't "train" them properly, then how are they going to know whats good and what crap. The food manufacturers certainly won't tell 'em. They just want to produce food that costs as little as possible to make, but commands the highest prices to buy. They're not in it for your benefit (unless you happen to own shares in that company), they're in it too make a profit.

All I really have to do to improve my health is to stop smoking and try to get in the habit of taking more exercise.

Ah yes. That magic word, exercise. Perhaps it's the one thing that people are not doing enough of, and no, you don't have to throw hundreds of pounds/dollars/euro at some posh gym membership - they aren't really very nice places to try to improve (unless you're some sort of image obsessed moron who needs to have others to compare yourself too). Normally, the only thing that gets lighter with smart gym memberships is your fucking wallet! The robbing bastards.

Jog, cycle, swim, walk, something. Theres enough advice from the medical world to guide you in an appropriate way to exercise more.

Oh well, I suppose that I'd better go and get on with my cycle ride!

pip pip!

Well, having seen just how much Jamie Olivers apparent influence has had i.e. it seems to have given the government the kick up the arse that they apparently needed.

But, one or two of the comments he made during the programme or during the current coverage he's generated have "struck a chord".

Ok, so it was the fucking tories (as I understand it) that removed the mandatory nutrional requirements, and then with their waves of public spending cuts, put the school meals services out to commercial tender. Enabling their friends who own the successful commercial entities to take over school kitchens. Which were then turned into "cook/chill dogshit factories".

Sure there'll always be political stuff about public spending, but when are these fucking government idiots gonna realise that there's somethings that just can't be put onto commercial footings, and will always be "loss leaders"? Schools, social services, public health, prisons, etc to name but a few! Sure, that shouldn't stop the controlling authorities keeping a hand on the purse strings and yes, I'm quite happy to concede that it's not as easy as it sounds but, nothing really is, is it?

So, with that in mind, lets take the example of those aforementioned "cook/chill dogshit factories". The comment that struck a chord, was "behaviour improved", over the time that the Oliver stuff was going on in the school in Greenwich that his programme was filmed in.

What does that tell you? Maybe that something in (or not, as the case may be) the food is affecting the young peoples behaviour?

Whats the difference between the fresh fruit and vegetables, and the fast food that was originally served?

Fat, Salt, Sugar, Fibre ? or was it something more insidious ? Like shit loads of "E numbers" ?

All that the "E number" means is that it's been tested, and found safe for consumption in Europe. So, what does "safe" really mean? is it that it won't cause short term health concerns i.e. illness/disease etc? or is it that these chemicals (often stuff that's only included to make stuff last longer, or in otherwords reduce the cost and increase the profit margins of the manufacturer, right the way down to the retailer) have been thoroughly checked to make sure that they don't actually affect the very levels of natural bodily chemicals that affect things like behaviour ?

Or maybe these additive type things aren't actually covered by the "e numbering system"? but by other regs. Like chicken for example. "They" are allowed to put a certain amount of water in "fresh" chicken. Why? other than to make it weigh more so that "they" make a bigger profit! If the flour producers put fucking chalk into flour to make it go further, they'd be hung out to dry by the fucking courts! (much like they were in historical terms). So why are the fucking meat bastards allowed to effectively do the same thing? Or the bacon manufacturers for that matter?

Sure, those are just two of the more well known examples. But there appear to be many many more, like the recent "Sudan 1" scandal. Because when you industrialise food processing, it changes, not necessary for the worse, but it changes. The marketing scum then try and sell it to you, with nice shiney photographs, adverts and other dubious claims of how wonderful it is, and they are!

Bollocks. Fucking liars, the lot of 'em.

The obvious thing to do, is to take ALL school kitchens back out of the control of commercial "enterprise", put them back into "state" control. Provide MANDATORY nutritional standards, not only for fat, salt and sugar, but for fibre and vitamins, oh and then take any fucking vending machines out of schools and crush these fucking hazards with a large bulldozer!

Then, ban all producers, wholesalers, retailers from selling any "doctored" shit. A few judicial punishments for exploiting us with crap etc etc.

But it ain't gonna happen is it! God forbid, that the government upset's "business"! Even though it's in their power too. Because that'd cause to much of an inconvenience. Short term tax revenue losses, profits, etc etc etc. Increased cost's in the shorter term while these businesses have to change their practices and so on!

In other words, basic public health can go and fuck itself if it's gonna cause any "rocking of the financial boat"!

Oh, and no, parents don't get off lightly either! If you want kids, then be prepared to make the sacrifices. Get of your fat, fucking couch potatoe arses, turn the fucking telly off, and spend just a little more time and effort to produce normal, basic food for your offspring. Don't just follow the rat run, that is todays supermarket isles for the easiest things to shove down your kids throats, think about it a little, it's not hard!

So it's taken a TV chef, Jamie Oliver, to highlight the poor standards of "food" being fed to the nations kids for "school dinners".
Well done, Jamie Oliver.

If you then think what the possible answer is to this? Well, I like to think that I have a "middling" view of most things (albeit with emotional outbursts), and the only answer, well 2 really, are for the government to set minimum nutritional standards, and get rid of profit making companies from "school dining halls".

Trouble with that, is that those who'd make such decisions, can afford to send their kids to schools who are almost capable of providing a fucking 3 star (Michelin) menu for their school dinners! (and that's not to be critical of the Michelin Guide, because it does point us toward some absolutely outstanding restraunts).

Officialdom seems obsessed with offering choice. Well, from an alledgely "common sense" view, that's exactly what kids DON'T NEED! They need education. Which, if necessary, needs to include learning about healthy eating, not where the nearest Mickey D's is, so they can get their daily portion of crispy crunchy chicken factory floor sweepings (what part of the body supplies it's "nuggets" anyway?). Liberally coated with carcinogenic chemical sauce? Yum Yum, just what growing kids need in their daily diet!

Local Authorities don't need to make a profit. So where there's commercial provision in school dining halls, fuck em off, then whatever proportion of the daily dinner money charge that goes straight to their banks and shareholders, could just as easily be put toward the cost of the ingredients - It's not fucking rocket science is it!

The same applies to parents. Don't just go round the supermarket for more packets of the latest convenience processed dog shit, and no you don't have to be fucking "cordon bleu" cooks either. It doesn't take that much longer to make basic, nutritionally sound meals - Oh yes, I forget, god forbid that you miss that latest episode of Corrie or Xtenders. Life wouldn't be worth living, would it - you bunch of TV addicted fucking tubs of lard!

Also, given the current public conversation thats going on, in respect of "The Obesity Epidemic", especially amongst the nations children,

My personal message is this:

Read the Fucking label. Don't feed your kids so much Shit! Then maybe, just maybe the kid won't end up as a "Fat Cunt"! at school. If it's got rubbishy ingredients in it, don't buy it. If you don't feed it to the fucking kids in the first place, they probably wouldn't get a taste for it! Don't sit in front of your television set like a fucking bloated lazy whale, put a bit of effort into preparing fresh food that's not full of shit! Spend a little on recipe books, and if the recipe you happen to choose is one that might raise eyebrows because of the amount of fat/salt/sugar, then don't not have it, but have it as an occasional treat.

If your kid is already a "Fat Bastard", because you're a fucking moron, then sell the car and make the fat bastard walk to school, if you happen to be one of these parents who to be paranoid, "oh god, there's a child molester on every street corner", then walk with the kids, it'll probably do you some good as well. And if you happen to live too far from the school, then either move school or move fucking house!

And finally, "WAKE UP". The food manufacturers aren't making the convience products for your benefit, it's because like all businesses, they want to make you part with your money - and if they can take cheap ingredients and "Add Value", they're not adding the value for you, the customer, they're adding the value so they can charge you more for it! (and pay the company directors fucking huge bonuses).

"This" © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 is an article that particularly amused me.

It amused me, but didn't suprise me. Let's face it, with anything that can be described as unhealthy, the vested interests go out of their way to smear anything that is critical of their particular industry.

As with this report, and "Big Sugars'" attempts to diguise their alledged interference, it seems to be the same as with the tobacco industry. "Big Tobacco" seems to have gone to quite some extremes, to hide the evidence of ill health in connection with the consumption of tobacco. It doesn't matter whether it's snuff, chewing tobacco or cigar/cigarette/pipe tobacco. It would appear that "they" knew of the health risks many many years before the various government establishments "cottoned on" to the health hazards.

And even now, they seem to spend millions sponsoring research that says, tobacco isn't as bad as you think!

Ha, Bollocks!

As one of those who is "time poor", you'll note that my entries are a little erratic. But when I'm working, I do try and pay special attention to matters that specifically regard food.

Last night, while heading into London, I caught an excellent programme on the radio. There's not much point in linking the audio stream, as I believe that the BBC replace the audio feed's, when the next programme has been broadcast. The "analysis" programme is a general "looking into things" type programme, but the following link is to the transcript of the broadcast. You will find it "here" © B.B.C. 2004. If you read through it, you'll see it's main focus seems to be on "Looking after yourself" and makes lot's of valid points/comments in respect of the latest "obesity" problem.

It left me thinking that the various governments of the world have no choice but to legislate against the very people who manufacture your food. Labeling, salt, fat, sugar - those three "magical" ingredients, so beloved by the food industry.

This would need to be done, inasfaras what they add as "extra". for example, when cheese is manufactured/made, it already has quite a high fat content - so this would be just a labeling thing. But with so many other manufactured food products, the additional salt, sugar and fat content, should be banned.

If you are lucky enough to have the time to cook "proper" meals, then that's where you have choice, but in these times of processed ready meal's, they, the manufacturers have taken away your choice. Traditional recipies have been developed in kitchen's and it's your choice to decide if you want to try and modify a flavour by limiting an ingredient. Processed food, is produced from recipes taken from traditional sources and then fucked about with in a laboratory - so "they" can make them taste how "they" want, and make it so you can have it with a relatively long shelf life.

All in the name of profit - nothing against making a profit per se, but these fuckers aren't just making money, they're messing with the very health of society, that the public SHOULD be allowed to take for granted.

I'm sure that you can see that this is a long and complicated matter. One that I will get to again.

"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".

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.

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

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

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

"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".

"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.

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.

"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

"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.

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)!!!

"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!