Skip to content

Food

Eight Different Healthy Meals

Apparently:

Teenagers will be given compulsory cooking lessons at school for the first time, under government plans to ensure that all pupils know how to make eight different healthy meals.

And they\’re asking us, yes, us plebs, to provide the list of dishes that they should know how to cook.

So, no pork, for that will offend Muslims (well, the professional race mob at least), no beef (Hindus), no nuts because of allergies, no butter, sugar, salt (obesity), no trans-fats (because the previous advice about butter turned out to be wrong). Gonna be interesting, eh?

So, leaving aside those problems, what should the ankle biters be taught to cook?

Roast beef and the trimmings? Chicken Massala? Toad in the Hole? Deep fried Pizza?

Alex Renton: Idiot

In a piece on rising food prices Alex Renton says this:

But the factors behind the price rises in Leith are exactly the same as those in Mexico, or in China – where, last Wednesday, the government introduced price controls on dairy products, meat, vegetables and cereals. And while food price inflation hit 18 per cent last year in China, there\’s no good reason why they should not do that here. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why they should.

So there are no reasons why there should not be price controls on food and reasons why there should. A few paragraphs up he says:

Habits will change, although it\’s unlikely we\’re going to see Soviet-style queues at empty shelves.

A complete idiot, obviously. The fixing of prices below the cost of production means that no one will produce and thus we will get Soviet-style queues at empty shelves.

Why is it that journalists are ignorant of the most basic concepts of economics?

Erm, Zoe?

This bit is really quite good:

Immediately, this riles. Yes, we all have to take responsibility for our consumer choices. But those choices are a lot more meaningful for some than for others. The difference between a three quid broiler and a £10 organic bird to someone with dependants, living on – let\’s not even be melodramatic and say benefits, let\’s say the median national income of £24k – is very great.

To Jamie Oliver, it is no difference at all, on account of how he is loaded. And why is he loaded? Because a) he makes quite a lot of money entertaining us by gassing boy chicks, and b) he hoovers up that much and more again by advertising for Sainsbury\’s, which has been one of the driving forces behind this cheap food since mass production began.

Or, at least, this is the kind of petty-minded line of argument a person might be driven to, standing accused of cruel consumer choices. It is, frankly, obnoxious to see a rich person demanding impoverishing consumer choices from a poorer person. These chef-polemicists consider themselves outside politics, because they\’re being straightforward – let\’s eat what came out of the ground naturally, what was raised in a happy way. Let\’s just do as nature intended, and by gum it will be tasty, and what could possibly be political about that?

They\’re right, it isn\’t political, in that it has no consistency of ideas, indeed, doesn\’t even comprehend its own implications, but it encapsulates rather well what happens when rhetoric becomes unmoored from structured ideology: you get all the worst bits of the left – the proselytising, the sanctimony – and all the worst bits of the right – the I\’m-all-right-Jack, the "if you worked a bit harder, you too could afford to be me".

Well, quite. Insisting that those poorer than yourself follow your expensive moral choices really is rather galling.

But then this is howlingly bad:

The fact is, ethics that come out of your wallet are not ethics. All these catchwords that supposedly convey sensitivity to the environment, to animals, to the developing world – fair trade, organic, free range, food miles etc – are just new ways to buy your way into heaven, the modern equivalent of the medieval pardon. Anyone with a serious interest in this would be lobbying the legislature; arguing to tighten laws on animal cruelty.

Instead of persuading people to our moral view, we should pass a law making it illegal for people to differ from our moral view! Result!

 

 

Cloned Animals and Food

An interesting little example of the stupidity of the food testing system in the European Union. First, the Americans have considered this matter:

US farmers have been given the green light to produce cloned meat for the human food chain. In a 968-page report billed as a "final risk assessment" of the technology, the US Food and Drug Administration has concluded that healthy cloned animals and products from them such as milk are safe for consumers.

An entirely logical stance. There\’s nothing different about meat or milk from cloned animals. Indeed, that\’s rather the point, that there isn\’t anything different about them. So while one can argue on moral grounds (not sure what ones, but I\’m sure it\’s possible) or animal welfare ones, as is done here:

"It\’s a technology that has arisen out of a huge burden of animal suffering and that is still going on," said Joyce D\’Silva, of Compassion in World Farming. But she said even if the embryo loss rates were brought down to acceptable levels, the technology would be detrimental to animal welfare. "It looks like it is going to be used to produce the most highly productive animals – the cows that produce the most milk, the pigs with the meatiest bodies. These are the high-producing animals that have the most endemic welfare problems anyway."

Well, yes, that\’s the point of all animal breeding programs. All this one does is allow us to do it better.

But arguing about the food itself as being safe or unsafe is nuts: thus the American decision. But what has to happen here?

Even if cloned meat were given approval by the European agency it would have to undergo rigorous testing. "Under the novel foods regulation, the applicant has to provide evidence of safety – this could be in the form of a detailed comparison with the existing product, or it could be the results of tests in animals," said a spokesperson for the UK\’s Food Standards Agency. It would also be subject to approval by the European commission, which would require a majority vote of EU member states. Approval in the EU is likely to be years away, if at all.

That\’s the way to spark innovation, isn\’t it? To make Europe the most knowledge based, forward looking (or whatever the gibberish offered by the Lisbon Declaration is) economy in the world? When you offer something which isn\’t in fact a new product at all, it\’s a direct replication of an existing one (again, which is, after all, the point of cloning) you have to go through a testing process lasting some years, one which also requires the assent of the assembled continent\’s politicians, before you can sell it?

That\’s really going to get the boffins excited about inventing new things, isn\’t it?

The Marmalade Scandal!

There\’s more to this than meets the eye, you know?

As many of you will have been painfully aware, in Britain, sales of marmalade are in decline. While the attention of the nation has been focused on such diversionary chimeras as Iraq, the Iowa caucus and Britney Spears’s mentalness, marmalade has been going the way of the pikelet, piccalilli and Gentleman’s Relish. It is becoming an anachronism in the brash new world of the energy drink, the breakfast bar and Coca-Cola with vitamins in. It is facing gradual extinction.

Galvanised by this slow-moving preserve tragedy, David Atkinson, of Premier Foods – the manufacturer of Frank Cooper’s, Rose’s and Golden Shred – has announced an important change: marmalade is to be renamed “orange jam”.

“We’re looking at ways of making marmalade more accessible,” Atkinson said. “The challenge is to entice a new generation.”

The thing is though, you\’re not allowed to simply change the name like that. Ooooooh, no, there are laws about what is marmalade and what is jam. Very important ones too: it\’s a criminal offence (not a civil one) to breach them, with up to 6 months in jail and or a £5,000 fine to breach them.

Yes, it\’s our old friend, the jams, jellies, marmalades and sweet chestnut purees (including extra jams and extra jellies) where these are for human consumption but not in the preparation of fine bakery wares, pastries or biscuits. Here\’s the Welsh version. Yes, of course, it all comes from the European Union.

Our marmalade description:

A mixture, brought to a suitable gelled consistency, of water, sugars and fruit pulp, fruit purée, fruit juice, fruit peel or aqueous extract of fruit or any combination thereof, in every case obtained from citrus fruit, such that the quantity of citrus fruit used for every 1000 grams of the finished product is not less than 200 grams, of which not less than 75 grams is obtained from the endocarp.

Doesn\’t that make you feel better? That the governing body for 450 million people went to such lengths to protect you from marmalade which only uses 70 grams of citrus fruit endocarp? Further:

The following additional ingredients may be used, to the extent stated below:

essential oils of citrus fruits: only in marmalade and jelly marmalade;

So, orange jam may not contain essential oils of citrus. No, really, it is very important indeed. So much so that 27 national legislatures, any number of devolved ones and at least ten thousand politicians, with their assorted hangers on, secretaries, mistresses and toadies, should pass such a law. For what perils would accost us all if you were to spend £3 on a jar of orange jam which contained essential oils of citrus? As opposed to £3 on a jar of marmalade which did not?

Well, quite. People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough politicians stand ready to violence to the law on their behalf.

Macrobiotic

Whole Earth released the findings of a poll which found that two-thirds of respondents were baffled by the terms \’sustainable\’ and \’genetically modified\’ and almost half thought that \’macrobiotic\’ meant a type of bacteria – I won\’t sneer because I had to look it up too.

Hmm, I just vaguley assumed that it was some hippy dippy nonsense and that I didn\’t need to know any more than that.

Followers of the macrobiotic approach believe that food and food quality powerfully affect health, wellbeing, and happiness. The macrobiotic approach suggests choosing food that is less processed and more natural, and employing more traditional methods of cooking for family, friends, and oneself. One goal of the macrobiotic philosophy and practice is to become sensitive to the true effects of foods on health and wellbeing. In this way, one goes beyond rules and regulations concerning diet to choosing foods that sustains one\’s health. Dietary guidelines help one to develop sensitivity and an intuitive sense for what sustains one\’s health and wellbeing in diet as well as in relationships and activities. Macrobiotics emphasizes locally grown whole grain cereals, pulses (legumes), vegetables, seaweed, fermented soy products and fruit, combined into meals according to the principle of balance (known as yin and yang). Dietary recommendations include whole grains, such as brown rice, and other whole grain products, such as buckwheat pasta (soba); a variety of cooked and raw vegetables; beans and bean products, such as tofu, tempeh and miso;; mild natural seasonings; fish; nuts and seeds; mild (non-stimulating) beverages, such as bancha twig tea; and fruit. Nightshade vegetables, including tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, eggplant; also spinach, beets and avocados are forbidden (or used sparingly) in macrobiotic cooking, as they are considered extremely yin[3]. Some macrobiotic practitioners also discourage the use of nightshades due to the alkaloid solanine, thought to affect calcium balance.

Having looked it up it is indeed hippy dippy nonsense. So much for first impressions then.

This is the Point!

The campaigns against factory-reared chickens by celebrity chefs such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver are helping to put poultry producers out of business, farmers’ leaders claimed yesterday.

Whether you agree with the campaign or not is one thing. But the point of the campaign is to put such poultry farms out of business. So the complaint is that the campaign is actually being successful, no?

Trenchermen Unite!

Erm, excuse me, but what\’s new about this?

For those who can\’t stand the washing up, help is at hand with one of the strangest culinary inventions in years – the bread bowl.

A Birmingham food firm has started making bowls and plates out of dough. The idea is that diners enjoy a soup, chilli or curry, then eat the bowl too.

We have a word in English, "trencherman", meaning someone with a healthy appetite (OK, more than healthy). The origin is supposed to be from the word "trencher", which in medieval times was the name for the piece of stale bread which you food was served upon. Still hungry after your meal? Then eat the bread which had now soaked up the juices and sauce from the hunk of whatever animal you had been eating.

So far from this being something new this is something rather old.

No doubt we\’ll have someone claiming that this is all a Sharia plot to take us back to before the Renaissance. Look, look, it\’s naan bread, proof positive, see?

We\’re Killing Ourselves!

Look out for more restrictions on who can have NHS treatment: you\’ll need to have your ID card marked with the portions of fruit and vegetables you\’ve consumed each day before long.

Almost 70,000 deaths could be avoided every year if Britons followed healthy eating guidelines, a wide-ranging government report says.

However, it\’s a little difficult to take the figures on offer seriously.

The nation\’s poor diet costs the economy £10 billion, of which £7.7 billion comprises NHS treatment that could be avoided if people cut down on fatty and salty foods and ate more fresh fruit and vegetables.

There\’s a basic point about the NHS. Because it covers us all, for our lifetimes, it\’s rather difficult for us to cost it money by dying early.

Those who die prematurely would have lived for almost 10 years longer if they adhered to dietary advice, the report says.

Hmmm. Now, NHS spending per capita (from memory here, so hope I\’ve got it right) is some £1,800 a year. Pop your clogs 10 years early and the NHS thus saves £18,000 on you. And if you don\’t die of your unhealthy lifestyle, you\’re going to die of something else, something which may cost more or less than what you have got.

So while we can indeed say that the costs of treating those with these diet related diseases is £7.7 billion, when we do we\’re not actually being all that honest. For the amount saved by those 70,000 having 10 years of NHS treatment is £12 billion or so (please note, these are very rough numbers indeed, used only for comparison).

…the report says that if everybody ate healthily the economy would be £20 billion better off due to the reduced health care costs and extra years of productive life.

That\’s also a terribly suspect figure. We\’re told that it\’s 10 years of life being given up on average. The average lifespan is into the late 70s for men, early 80s for women. Whether we assume that this is before that extra 10 years or after it, those extra 10 years are all past the pensionable age. People at this time of life are not known as contributors to the economy (please note that this has nothing to do with the fact that rising lifespans are a great idea, we\’re talking solely about the financial calculations here), in fact, they\’re known as something of a drain on it. 70,000 people with another decade of the State pension is actually a cost of some £35 billion rather than a contribution to the productive side of the economy.

But don\’t worry, government policy is going to be determined by what\’s in that report, not what is actually true. Aren\’t we lucky?

Reduced Salt Leads to Obesity!

Unintended consequences all round. It appears that removing the salt from food has increased the caloric content. So the reason we\’re turning into a nation of fatties is because of these people.

Experts said the findings, derived from a comparison of current labels with old ones stored in museum archives, fitted a pattern whereby manufacturers remove salt and some types of fat from food for health reasons, only to replace them with sugar and more fat.

"Reducing salt is an excellent measure, but as a result companies are faced with bland processed food," said Tim Lobstein, the former director of the Food Commission who now heads the child obesity programme at the International Association for the Study of Obesity. "The cheap way of flavouring it up is to sugar it. Fat can also help because it helps your tongue notice the flavours – that\’s why you butter bread," he said.

A Kraft spokeswoman confirmed this is what had happened in the case of the cheese triangles. "We are trying to balance what consumers say they want in terms of the taste they enjoy, while trying to reduce the salt. But instead there\’s more butter, so that led to a modest increase in the calorie level," she said. The triangles today have more calcium and added vitamin D, as well as a third less salt.

So there we have it. Government, making you fat since the 1990s.