Author: admin

 

• Devious practice by those we trust is putting lives at risk
• Here’s the case for real food, rather than superfoods
• Revealed the harsh truth of corruption that goes right to the top

We are being conned by the food industry.

It’s a drum I keep banging in the hope that somewhere, somehow it will make a difference.

But those who make billions of pounds each year from providing us with our daily sustenance just aren’t playing fair, and they control the media…or so I thought.

In last Saturday’s Guardian magazine I was heartened to read that I’m not alone in my quest to have simple, honest and unadulterated food back in our shops.

One of their journalists, Joanna Blythman, went undercover in the food industry and discovered that even something as simple as a fruit salad has been messed around with to help bring a greater return to those who sell it.

You can read her full article here but one thing that really caught my eye was a brief translation of what the food label says, and what it really means, for example:

Added vitamins One-dimensional factory versions of natural vitamins found in whole foods: ascorbic acid (man-made vitamin C) is usually synthesised from the fermentation of GM corn, while artificial vitamin E is commonly derived from petrol.

Soluble fibre A healthier-sounding term for modified starch, which is widely used to reduce the quantity of more nutritious ingredients in processed foods, and keep down manufacturers’ costs.

‘Packaged in a protective atmosphere’ Food that has been “gassed” in modified air to extend its shelf life. It delays what food manufacturers call “warmed over flavour”, an off-taste that occurs in factory food.

Beef/pork/poultry protein Collagen extracted from butchered carcasses, processed into a powder and added to low-grade meats. It adds bounce, increases the protein content on the nutrition label and, combined with water, is a substitute for meat.

The sharp practice of inventing positive sounding phrases for some of the most heinous food crimes is nothing new, but when you consider that minced up goo is legally being added into premium branded meat products to increase the profit margin such fairy tales have to be stopped.

Who could ever believe this to be a good idea?

Clearly no-one with the health of their customers in mind; am I alone in asking for a return to good old-fashioned food preparation and retailing, a degree of honesty in the way the ingredients for our daily meal are presented to us?

I just want some unsullied carrot, a bold bright potato or two and a clean local lamb chop so that I can be healthy and happy too.

Real foods not superfoods

Back in the early 1990s an author called Michael Van Straten published a cookbook called “superfoods” and probably coined one of the most overused terms in food marketing.

Everywhere we look there are claims of some strange berry or fruit being the elixir of life itself and that a daily dose will cure us of all ills.

Over time many such foods have been placed upon a pillar of health, and rampant claims for their power bandied across the media, often with a shrill endorsement from a tame actress or health guru.

I have always been deeply suspicious of all of these claims and endorsements as I don’t believe any one thing can be that good for us.

Balanced and varied meals are the key to good health as they provide the full range of nutrients and natural stimulants that our bodies need.

When I wrote the Natural Food Wisdom pack I did so to celebrate normal food.

I wanted to show that all food is good, but only if it is pure, natural and in as raw a state as possible – so I listed out 56 individual everyday food items and showed how they contributed to a healthy life.

There were no wild and wonderful berries, just plain old broccoli, cabbage and a very surprising overall winner for the healthiest food to eat (if you haven’t already got a copy make sure you complete your home health library here).

I think it is about time that truly healthy, local produce is given the respect it deserves.

For too long we have been subject to big corporations messing with our food, hiding potentially harmful ingredients within it like high fructose corn syrup, or just adding in goo and garbage to boost their profits.

Why isn’t more being done to stop this?

The harsh truth about those we trust to protect us

The Times was one of the newspapers which broke the scandal earlier this month of how government health advisers are actually on the take from food companies.

They reported how scientists on the board which provides guidance to ministers receive hundreds of thousands of pounds each year from brands such as Coca-Cola and Mars.

One of these corrupted experts, Frances Rawle – head of policy at the Medical Research Centre – tried to placate investigators by saying “We ensure that all research we fund is free of any influence from those with whom we collaborate”.

Well, I for one do not believe you. I think you are up to your stinking necks in collusion, sleight of hand and misdirection. And the nation’s health is all the worse for it.

And nuts to everyone… is this the true language of politicians?

On Valentine’s Day the Independent carried a report that a new food scandal was about to hit us which was more serious than the horsemeat crisis.

The story said that peanuts and almonds were being used in place of cumin seed and other aromatics to bulk up commonly eaten pre-prepared foods…

…a tactic that could have dire consequences for any unsuspecting allergy sufferers who consume the finished product.

A failed cumin harvest has made the spice more expensive, and this is being used as a justification for mixing in other ingredients to keep the food affordable.

But once again it has nothing to do with consumer demand and everything to do with bumping up the profit for business and retailers.

A report published this week about how peanut allergies could be countered by feeding nut extracts to babies as young as four months, made me think.

Whilst I suspect that this would prevent too many people getting allergies nowadays you have to ask why peanut allergies are becoming increasingly common – I don’t remember my mum cramming a bag of KP’s finest into my mouth as a kid, yet I don’t have the problem.

Rather than the issue being one of underexposure for infants could it be that the rest of our lives sees an overexposure?

For how long have unscrupulous manufacturers been using peanut products to bulk up their wares? I suspect for the last 15 years, which would tie up with the rise in childhood allergies.
By phasing in exposure from a very young age they hope to counteract the issues later on.

I suspect this to be yet another example of profit centred meddling in our diets.

A crying shame that no government has got to grips with it – because there are too many of those in power who have their snouts firmly in the trough.

Yours, as always

Ray Collins

Ray Collins
The Good Life Letter

www.shop.goodlifeletter.com
www.goodlifeletter.com

• How do you make a woolly jumper?
• Discover the role played by a monk in the story of genetics
• The real dangers of genetic engineering

Dear Sun City 50 Plus Club members,

We are surrounded by a new breed of mad scientists who have the opinion that anything they want to do is fair game, no matter how abhorrent the outcome.

For anyone who is worried that I might have found out that we are about to see strange new creatures walking in our fields, please rest easy – but don’t think it might not happen.

You see they have already begun to mess about with plants in similar ways that would make a cross between a sheep and a kangaroo seem sensible.

Last weekend I woke to the radio telling me that I would soon be able to buy a tomato with the antioxidant properties of a blueberry.

I was genuinely interested as I have long been a fan of the health benefits of tomatoes and blueberries, and thought they might have discovered a traditional old variety with hidden properties.

But, no the next speaker was a scientist who told me that they had succeeded in changing the genetic code in a tomato so that it accepted inserted genes from a blueberry.

I began to imagine a version of Dr Frankenstein laboratory with a tomato and a blueberry strapped to a bench with curly wires running between them, and the mad cackling of a wild haired madman as he throws the huge power switch that sends genes from one to the other…

…I used to watch a lot of Hammer Horror films as a kid!

Despite the image such genetic meddling gives me, I happen to believe that by affecting the way organisms work can only have catastrophic effects.

Let me explain why.

Sweet peas and ancient monks

The father of modern genetics was no scary scientist but a gentle old monk.

Back in 1865 Gregor Mendel was to be found in his greenhouse and garden with a fine haired brush lifting pollen from one sweet pea plant and using it to fertilise another.

He was acting like a bee in carrying the male gamete from the stamens of one plant to the female carpels of the next – a completely natural intervention.

From his work he identified how inheritance worked and how some traits are dominant and others only express in certain circumstances – all from chronicling how his pollen transfer affected the colours of the flowers on the plants.

Mendels work was gentle, natural and devout. The science he used was basic and completely safe to the plants, him & other humans and the environment of the planet.

He would never countenance trying to place sweet pea pollen into a tomato plant, because he simply knew that interspecies reproduction didn’t work, that was how nature intended it.

It might seem a little picky of Mother Nature but each species is designed to breed only within itself, or with very close relatives.

So, in the wild it has been reported that Donkeys and horses interbred, and this was encouraged by humans to create stronger and faster pack animals – but that should really be it.

Other close relative crosses have seen tigers and lions mix (Tiglon), camels and llamas (Cama) and even a disastrous attempt to create more manageable bees by crossing those from Europe with an African species… the result was killer bees – really aggressive bees that attack on sight!

And that alone should be a warning to the scientists involved with interspecies work.
I’m not suggesting that crossing a tomato and a berry would result in a salad that wanted to rip your throat out, just that the outcomes are not predictable and often are an affront to nature.

The growing risk

In the development of all species there have been jumps in evolution, even our own where the latest evidence shows that Homo sapiens (modern man) met with and bred with the Neanderthals.

Imagine the scene…

…it is a serene and warm night on the savannah, a rich mammoth stew is bubbling over the campfire, the effects of fermented fruit juice is beginning to make the atmosphere heavy. Urgs face was softened by the soft light of the fire as it played across his rugged features and incredibly high forehead, Naarg lay her head onto his hairy shoulder and…

Enough of the Mills and Boon I think!

The problem is that the introduction of a ‘new’ species into the gene pool created issues for the children of this coupling.

They were less fertile, they had problems with their digestive tract and suffered from debilitating fatigues (so suggest the anthropologists and psychologists who have been working on the project – I don’t know how they discovered this as diaries from the period are somewhat lacking!).

There was a benefit though, it seems that our forebears had an improved immune system which protected them from the pestilence that eventually wiped out the Neanderthals themselves – strange thing genetics.

And here lies the crux of my concerns. If we start to mess about with genetics either by naturally crossing species which have some affinity, or worse by forcing genes into places they shouldn’t be we run the risk of creating much bigger problems than a few bees that like a bit of aggro.

At the start of this letter I said I was excited by the prospect of an old variety of tomato being discovered that was rich in antioxidants, but in reality why shouldn’t I just have a beautiful tomato salad, maybe with a nice piece of grilled mackerel, and then follow it up with a bowl of fresh blueberries (if they were in season at the time)?

What is the obsession with ‘fast food’ and ‘one stop’ nutrition, the joy of food is in variety and difference.

Yours, as always

Ray Collins
The Good Life Letter

www.shop.goodlifeletter.com
www.goodlifeletter.com

You can receive Ray’s ‘The Good Life Letter’ regularly by contacting him on his website.