Get the full story at thegrocer.co.uk 13 January 2018 | The Grocer | 23higgins
Richard PendletonT
he trailer for Rotten
(Net ix) conjures a dark
world of portentous
music, urgent voiceovers and
the ethically rotten food that
lends its name to the title. The
rst episode falls a bit short ,
but it is still disquieting stu .
As a US series, it opens
by looking at the US honey
industry, beset by dying or
absent bees and adulterated
imports from Chinese hives. We
are told that more than 50% of
the US bee population has died
o . This would be a news story
if it had happened to cattle, yet
domestic demand for honey
is increasing. The circle is
squared with imported product
of dubious provenance.
We see a German lab
demonstrating that a lot
of honey samples actually
contain large quantities of
syrup, and are taken to almond
orchards where bee farmers
are making money by working
as pollinators. The conclusion- that there is less money in
honest honey than we might
like – is clear.
What makes Rotten worth
persisting with is that it brings
a large volume of compelling
and damning information
into one place. While much of
the details might be known
to people working in the
food industry, a lot of the
information will be new to
consumers who are starting to
ask probing questions about
what nds itself on their fork.
Other instalments, like the
fourth episode, titled simply
‘Big Bird’, which looks at
chicken production, are more
unsettling still. Combined with
its slick presentation style and
the he of the Net ix name
behind it, expect Rotten to
prompt some uncomfortable
questions for the food industry.
CRITICAL EYE
More Change4Life junk
second opinion
Joanna Blythman is a journalist
and author of Swallow ThisA
s an annual example of
government advisors’
abysmal, terminally
atrophied eating advice, could
there can be a sadder case than
Change4Life’s latest children’s
snacks campaign? £4.5m of tax-
payers’ money spent telling par-
ents it’s ne to feed children junk
twice a day, providing the total
calorie count doesn’t exceed 200.
Like oiling a lawnmower that’s
rusted up in the garden shed,
they crank the same patently
ine ective dietetic advice to life.
They recommend nutrient-light
stodge, such as crumpets, rice
cakes and crackers while they
discourage the consumption of
whole, nutrient-dense, full-fat
foods like cheese and yoghurt
that would actually sate grow-
ing children’s appetites.
They promote sugar-free jelly-
water, arti cial avouring and
colouring, gums, and arti cial
sweeteners (which research
increasingly suggests are possi-
bly even worse for causing weight
gain than sugar). Frankly, any-
one still spouting such danger-
ous drivel earns a place in the
hall of infamy alongside those
‘experts’ who told us there
was nothing inherently wrongwith smoking, providing you
restricted it to 20-a-day.
But it was great, though, to hear
a counter blast to Public Health
England’s supine appeasement
of Big Food from outspoken Dan
Parker, the successful advertis-
ing executive who once earned
his living marketing food brands.
He likens Big Food companies toBig Tobacco, exposing how the
former is still working zealously
to persuade us to consume more
junk. His conclusion? “We need
to particularly eat less unhealthy
food that generally comes in a
packet and has a logo on it and is
generally owned by a very large
multinational corporation.”
Instead of perpetuating the c-
tion that junk is fine in small
quantities, this is the message
PHE should disseminate.
It has to be said that Britain
has many parents and food
writers who ignore government
counsel and feed their children
well. Their practical snack ideas
based on real healthy ingredients
could re up the imagination of
people who’ve got stuck in junk
food habits. What about deliver-
ing a free pamphlet, featuring 50
a ordable homemade snacks, to
every household in the UK? That
would be £4.5m well spent.“ So it’s ne to feed
kids junk twicea day, is it, if it is
below 200kcal?”Joanna Blythman