Jamie Oliver TED Talk

While browsing Anne’s blog, I came across this great video of Jamie Oliver. I guess by now he’s someone pretty well known on both sides of the Atlantic. While I like Jamie a lot, there are clearly some points I disagree with him on, so I’m going to say something about these too.

To be honest, I have a problem with his strong imagery regarding sugar.

When it comes to processed foods containing sugar, and children especially consuming large quantities of this, there’s little to disagree with. Children don’t need sugar added to their milk to make it taste better, nor do they need artificial flavors and colors. In addition, there’s reason to be concerned about salt and fats in processed foods. While I say concerned, I want to be clear that moderation is key here, and those that have the most to worry about are people that eat only processed foods and little else.

There’s also little doubt that the healthiest food for anyone to eat is fresh, home cooked, locally produced and free of chemicals and pesticides. The healthiest diet is also one that emphasises fruits, vegetables and simple starches over animal products and other processed foods. This is particularly important for children.

On the other hand, sugar, salt and fats/oils are also perfectly normal cooking ingredients, that nearly all of us have in our kitchens. These are perfectly fine to use in cooking or to season your food. It’s absolutely crazy that some people think it’s unhealthy for the average person to add a spoonful of sugar to their tea or salt to their meal. If you’re diabetic, have high blood pressure or otherwise under doctors care, there may be some specific reason why you personally cannot eat certain things, but there’s no evidence to suggest it’s in any way unhealthy for the average person.

Many of us also eat modest amounts of processed foods containing these ingredients, like dairy, soft drinks, meats, and even things like soy sauce, catsup and so on. There’s little evidence to suggest there’s anything wrong with this. In fact there’s evidence to suggest that not only are these normal things to consume, they can also be healthy. There can however be many reasons for concern regarding how these foods are produced, and in general it’s becoming increasingly clear how important it is to think about this.

Food companies make huge profits by making people afraid of normal foods, and selling them supposedly healthy alternatives or by substituting something cheaper for these common ingredients.

Sugar is one of the most clear examples. In relative terms, sugar is expensive to add to processed foods. It’s price fluctuates on world markets, and supplies are not reliable. Soft drink companies have long sought alternatives to common sugars for their products. By using a sugar substitute, for example aspartame that’s commonly used in sugar free soft drinks, manufactures save an estimated 1.5 cents (US dollars) per can of beverage. This is a huge savings when considering how many cans of sugar free drinks are made each year. A similar savings can be had by using high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of normal sugar, which is common in the US.

The problem is these sugar alternatives are linked to obesity, diabetes and other health problems. Statistically, people who drink soft drinks containing aspartame instead of sugar are heavier. In addition, the current obesity epidemic in the US corresponds almost exactly to the introduction of HFCS into processed foods and soft drinks.

There’s little evidence to show a connection between consuming modest amounts of ordinary sugar and weight gain. In fact, sugar is known to suppress appetite and many people who switch to sugar alternatives find themselves coping with a significant increase in hunger. Aspartame is a known appetite stimulant.

In simple terms, there’s little evidence to suggest an average adult without specific medical concerns is doing anything unhealthy by consuming modest amounts of fats, sugar or salt, as long as these come from natural sources. Specifically, there is no benefit in looking for alternatives to these foods. Certainly, no one should be afraid of these ingredients for use in home cooking.

New Frontiers in Genetic Engineering

I was browsing some older posts from Matt’s blog, and I came across this.

In fact this is something I’ve known for a while, and coincidentally sent Matt an email about the other day, but I’ve never posted here on the subject.

It’s just a fact, the science of genetic engineering (GE) is quickly moving out of the laboratory and into the home.  Not just in our ability to buy products that are themselves a result of GE, but also in our own ability to make GE organisms.

Already, if you have a well equiped home, it’s possible to do an awful lot.  The cost of this equipment is within the budgets of many people, it’s only getting cheaper and it’s accuracy increasing.

The amount of publicly available data that can assist GE is also increasing at a dramatic rate; including things like decoded genomes and cataloges of marker genes (a fancy term that just means genes with a known trait).  All of this applies to plants, microorganisms, animals and even humans.

So while the debate now often centers on the latest Roundup ready gene Monsanto inserted into our soybeans, tomorrow it could be the latest accident caused by a teenager or the mess intentionally caused by someone knowledgeable.

I often compare GE to abortions.  I don’t really think it makes sense for anyone to be for or against abortions.  An abortion is just a medical procedure.  You can argue if it’s immoral, talk about it in terms of legal or illegal, safe or unsafe, early or late, but you can never deny the existence of the procedure itself.

This is really where we are now with GE.  It doesn’t make sense to call it good or bad.  The genie is out of the bottle.  Now it’s time to start learning as much as possible as quickly as possible about the science, and to focus honestly and diligently on what the real risks are.

In the meantime, this crap doesn’t belong in our food or the environment, until we’ve had a chance to honestly research and learn more about it!

Dumping High Fructose Corn Syrup

Since I’ve been to the US twice in the last couple of years, one of the things I’ve noticed is the apparent increasing rejection of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).  A year ago, it was astonishing.  Everything, just absolutely everything was full of HFCS, and excruciatingly sweet.

There’s little doubt, I wasn’t the only one who noticed this.  Friends and family noticed too, and when I was back last November it was clear there was increasing demand for products that didn’t contain HFCS.  Soft drinks are becoming available, and more and more other products, that are just made with normal sugar.  This almost certainly was connected with the world wide shortages of cane and beet sugar over the last year or so.

Where did it go?

If Americans aren’t eating HFCS anymore, it must have gone somewhere.

It’s pretty clear Europe is at least one of the recipients of the surplus.  They don’t call it by the same name here.  It’s usually called something like ‘glucose syrup’ or ‘glucose-fructose syrup’.  It seems to go under a number of names.  These are in a lot of foods and beverages here by now.  I especially notice it in a lot of beers and sweet alcoholic drinks marketed towards young people.  It’s also in many processed foods.

It does not seem to have any so-called European E-numbers associated with it, I guess because it’s not an additive but rather a foodstuff.  For those of you reading this who aren’t in Europe, because of the number of different languages here, and because it helps the food industry hide what they add to food, they have created a special coding system for food additives.  I would have to think about the the politics of it not having an E number a little more, but I guess consumers are more reluctant to buy E-numbers now, and perhaps it was an issue to get HFCS certified as a safe food additive.

What’s wrong with it?

Besides many people disliking the taste, HFCS is associated with many health problems.  It’s use as a food additive in the US corresponds almost exactly to the increase of obesity and related health problems we’ve seen in recent decades.  It’s associated with diabetes, gout and many other health problems.

If you’re trying to avoid eating GM foods, you should avoid this too.  It’s not necessarily made with GM corn, but often is.  According to Monsanto and other large food companies, processing will remove GMOs from this product.  That means, even though it may be made from GM corn, it is legal for sale as a food in Europe.  There hasn’t been any independent confirmation of food industry claims that GMOs are removed, and many people dispute it.  Nevertheless, it is legal for sale in Europe, GM or not.  There is also no requirement to label it as a GM food.

Kokopelli in New Conflict

Kokopelli Seeds of France, who last year was fined more than €17.000 for selling ‘illegal’ seeds, is involved in a new legal conflict.  Baumaux, the same company that instigated the previous legal action against Kokopelli Seeds has now registered the ownership of the name Kokopelli and is selling a new variety of tomato with it.

Baumaux is not stopping there however, they are also demanding Kokopelli Seed cease and desist in their use of the name Kokopelli and all business activities associated with it.  They are also demanding a payment of €100.000 in compensation for use of the name to date.

The original French language story is here, and a Google translated version here.