Channel 4: Dispatches - The true cost of cheap food

[david_carnell]

I have just watched Guardian food critic, and son of Clare, Jay Rayner present a rather interesting programme into the nutrition and cost of supermarket ?budget? ranges i.e. Sainsbury?s Basics or Tesco Value.

The gist was that these ranges include foodstuffs that (predominantly the meat-based products but not exclusively) are devoid of the nutritional content compared to their more expensive cousins. For example, budget meat pies contain less meat (and therefore protein) than regular or luxury meat pies and budget sausages likewise.

So far, so predictable ? at least, this didn?t come as a huge shock to me ? but along with some food science boffins Jay was able to show that it was possible to increase the meat content (or other nutritional value) and decrease the use of fat and connective tissue of these ranges for miniscule amounts of money (i.e. 0.7p per sausage) and bring them to the same standard as the regular products.

Taste tests were done amongst the patrons of Deptford market and again, with little surprise, it turns out a meat pie with more meat in it is tastier than one with less meat. But to the crux of the issue.....

The proposition that Rayner put forwards was, that in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility, supermarkets should increase the nutritional content of these products (which are aimed at those shopping on very tight budgets) at no increased cost to the consumer i.e. the supermarkets should cut their profits or make them elsewhere.

So, in these hardened economic times, does this House believe that in the name of social responsibility supermarkets should absorb a loss on their cheapest products, to provide those who can afford no better a more nutritious and tastier meal OR are supermarkets responsible only to their shareholders and after fulfilling legal obligations seek to maximise their profit margins wherever possible, including in budget ranges targeted at the most financially vulnerable in society?

[giggirl]

I don't believe that supermarkets give a toss about consumers. Really. So long as they tread on just the right side of legal and so long as they don't get any bad publicity, they're fine with whatever crap they have on their shelves. They're all competing on price at the moment so I fear that getting them to eat a whole 0.7p per sausage worth of profits is a non starter. Sounds like an interesting programme though and I hope the message snowballs.

[matthew123]

I think it should be the true cost of processed foods full stop. They are no good. You've only got to flick over the box and see the ingrediants to see they're often pumped with various unknowns that you won't find growing down at the farm.

I'm not saying I don't eat cr@p but what I can most definately control is what I buy at the supermarket and that is natural produce not synthetic foods like sausages, pork pies, microwaved curries, kiech, lasagnes etc.

[indiepanda]

Interesting. However, if it costs minimal amounts of money to bring them to the standard of normal products, I am not sure that the issue is as simple as whether supermarkets should run a loss on cheaper products for the those who can afford no better.

I suspect supermarkets use the different priced ranges to ensure that they can charge each consumer as much as they are willing to pay - so the more affluent consumer chooses the "taste the difference" type range because they can afford it and think it tastes better (though maybe not as much better as the price differential), but they can still sell to less well off consumers at the prices they can afford.

If the value range was acknowledged to just be the same nutritionally as the main range and tasted as good, then sooner or later it would become known the only difference would be the snob value of having the fancier packaging, and some more affluent consumer would starts buying the value range, really eroding the supermarkets margin and benefiting people who were capable of buying the more expensive products anyway.

It's the same principle coffee shops employ - the people who are willing to provide a higher profit margin to the coffee shop signal it by choosing the large, decaf, soya, extra shot capucchino with syrup etc - which would probably cost the consumer at least double what a regular americano would cost but certainly doesn't cost the coffee shop double to make.

All that aside, it's hard to suggest that sausages or pies should form part of a really nutritious meal - I would have thought if supermarkets wanted to be more responsible, controlling margins on fruit, veg and unprocessed meat would be more important?

[????]

Is he going to do a programme on how many media celebs offspring end up doing TV/media jobs too and how much this is down to talent or connections?...now that would be interesting...

jon snow's son

Zoe Ball

etc, etc

[Asset]

I think it is a marketing ploy in the main, however I have been known to buy 'basics' of some fruit and veg, they are priced lower and put in the 'basics' range as they may be slightly misshapen or not of a uniform size. This doesn't affect the nutritional value obviously and frankly if it means the supermarkets don't reject the produce at the point of supply it can only be a good thing.

Meat is a different matter altogether but as I don't eat the stuff I can't comment other than to say if I did eat it I would want to make sure it was of the best quality and provenance I could get.

I'm not sure supermarkets have that much of a social responsibility, as long as they provide a choice.

[david_carnell]

@Indiepanda

Yes, this thought had occured to me too. If supermarkets make the budget ranges the same as the regular product (if not the luxury range) then all customers would switch thus making it uneconomical. Which makes it problematic.

Essentially I do believe that with such a tight grip on the marketplace (supermarkets now account for over 90% of our grocery purchases) that they do have an obligation to the consumer and society at large.

Where this obligation begins and ends though is obviously a tricky one. The sausages are all clearly labelled as to their meat content so consumers are able to make a choice - if they can afford to.

So should we ask how we could subsidise healthy food for those who need it the most, without everyone buying it?

I don't know.

At least as far as meat is concerned, I am convinced that Britons in general, do not pay enough for it. It should be more expensive. Why? Because of the pressure on farmers, the animal welfare concerns associated with this, the (lack of) quality and nutrition in cheap meat and the current obsession with eating meat every day (and the environmental pressures this brings) all point to the dangers of "cheap" meat. Less, better quality meat is a more favourable option imho.

I'm open to other ideas though.

[espelli]

I think the improvements they made to the meat products were to remove the "connective tissue" (which counts as part of the amount of meat on the label) with proper meat. The connective tissue is free as the butchers otherwise have to pay ?25 to have a wheelie bin load of it disposed of. This is how the costs are cut. I am not convinced that the supermarkets make a loss on any of their ranges and so would only be cutting out some of their profit on these products.

I thought it was interesting that the family who tried shopping in small local shops ended up saving money - although not as much as the family living on the value ranges.

I agree that we do not spend enough on meat for all the reasons above. I also think there should be some way of reducing reliance on prepared meals and other processed foods. VAT added as it is in restaurants maybe? That will then make it cheaper to buy food like fruit and veg rather than cheaply produced pies etc. This idea has just occurred to me and I haven't thought all the implications through so would be interested to get other opinions.

[indiepanda]

I am not sure how many people really can't afford healthy food - a healthy diet is more a matter of knowing what is really healthy, preparation time and imagination than funds. Generally when I end up eating badly because of poor planning leaving me with no easy healthy options when I get home late, it's not money that is the issue. And I think Jamie Oliver proved you could provide pretty healthy food in schools on quite a low budget.

If there are people who can't afford because their benefits are too low, then it would probably be easier to increase the level of benefits rather than try to manipulate supermarket prices to ensure they can afford it. After all, either way the more affluent members of society will fund, either through increased taxes or through increased prices, and the former is probably easier to manage. But then it doesn't ensure it gets spent on healthy food...

I think there are a lot of issues with supermarkets, wider than just the quality of food they provide. Have you read Shopped by Joanna Blythman, David? It's quite sobering reading. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shopped-Shocking-Power-British-Supermarkets/dp/0007158041/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232663043&sr=1-1. Oh and you might enjoy this book too - Do Good lives have to cost the earth http://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-Lives-Have-Cost-Earth/dp/1845296435/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232663886&sr=1-2. (if you do fancy a read you can borrow my copies)

Certainly agree with your comments on meat. I think the issue you've raised is a common one with things that affect the environment - we simply don't pay the full cost of our actions on the planet and so overconsume - flights are similar.

[indiepanda]

espelli Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also think there should be some way of reducing reliance on prepared meals and other processed foods. VAT added as it is in restaurants maybe? That will then make it cheaper to buy food like fruit and veg rather than cheaply produced pies etc. This idea has just occurred to me and I haven't thought all the implications through so would be interested to get other opinions.

My initial equally unthought-through reaction is I agree. I don't suppose it would be overly popular, but then nor is rising taxation on alcohol and cigarettes. But ultimately if the government can encourage healthy choices by making them relatively more attractive, whilst collecting taxes to pay for the impact on the health service of unhealthy choices, that would seem like a sensible choice to me. I am sure people would start grumbling about nanny state etc - but if we are going to offer healthcare free at the point of use then it seems sensible to provide some sort of incentive to be healthy and tax those making unhealthy choices.

I suppose an issue is it could be seen to be anti the poor because richer people could afford to carry on eating the way they did before and poorer people wouldn't. But if they gave back part of the extra VAT collected in extra benefits / state pension then that could counter that argument...

Something needs to give somewhere - the NHS simply can't cope with the ever increasing demands upon it - either more money has to come from somewhere, or something needs to happen to stem the ever demand... taxing unhealthy food would seem to help on both counts.

[david_carnell]

Espelli - VAT on ready-meals is an interesting one. The supermarkets and manufacturers of said meals would go ape-shit at the idea but it's worth more exploration. Perhaps coupled with the "carrot" of further education in home economics (heavily discounted for those on low-incomes) in order for healthy eating to be more easily achieved.

Indiepanda - have PM'd you about those books. Thanks. I'm not sure it is just people on benefits who have tight budgets for food these days. The tv programme highlighted whole families from Leeds, with seemingly both parents working, and in the current climate everyone is considering cut-backs. Food items are often the first to suffer. I'm in agreement over the issue of time and education being the key to healthy food though, as opposed to budget. However, Britons work the longest hours in Europe - not something conducive to "slow-food" (of which I am a big advocate - see here).

[indiepanda]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure it is just people on benefits

> who have tight budgets for food these days. The tv

> programme highlighted whole families from Leeds,

> with seemingly both parents working, and in the

> current climate everyone is considering cut-backs.

> Food items are often the first to suffer. I'm in

> agreement over the issue of time and education

> being the key to healthy food though, as opposed

> to budget. However, Britons work the longest hours

> in Europe - not something conducive to "slow-food"

> (of which I am a big advocate - see here).

All good points. I suppose for the less well off working families something could be done via tax credit system - I had originally thought about suggesting increasing the tax free allowance in my previous post but had dropped that because it benefits the rich too, has forgotten tax credits.

Definitely agree something needs to happen on the education front. I think there has been too much focus in schools on academic qualifications and league tables. I'd like to see decent health and nutrition education and financial education for all - a bit more focus on life skills. It's all very well trying to make supermarkets behave more responsibly and financial services companies provide better advice, but knowledge is power in my book.

[LegalEagle-ish]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Espelli - VAT on ready-meals is an interesting

> one. The supermarkets and manufacturers of said

> meals would go ape-shit at the idea but it's worth

> more exploration. Perhaps coupled with the

> "carrot" of further education in home economics

> (heavily discounted for those on low-incomes) in

> order for healthy eating to be more easily

> achieved.

>

> Indiepanda - have PM'd you about those books.

> Thanks. I'm not sure it is just people on benefits

> who have tight budgets for food these days. The tv

> programme highlighted whole families from Leeds,

> with seemingly both parents working, and in the

> current climate everyone is considering cut-backs.

> Food items are often the first to suffer. I'm in

> agreement over the issue of time and education

> being the key to healthy food though, as opposed

> to budget. However, Britons work the longest hours

> in Europe - not something conducive to "slow-food"

> (of which I am a big advocate - see here).

In the past the poorer sections of the community (see I'm not saying the word class here!) used to keep rabbits and grow potatoes etc to spplement the food they bought. They used to buy cheaper cuts of meat and cook at home. Poor areas of Jamaica are still like that.

The fact that we have all been encouraged to work our arses off if we are in work and consume like crazy, paving or decking over any bit of garden we have has increased or dependancy on ready cooked food over wheich we have no control.

I have been fairly poor for ages and working my arse off more recently too - but I try to eat food we cook at home from basic ingredients and cycle to work. This works out cheaper and will hopefully be cheaper for the NHS in the long run! But it takes extra effort and when I'm exhausted I just grab some toast (wholemeal of course!) and an awareness of nutrition. My cooking skills are monotonous but healthy!

[Cassius]

I find that I am doing the opposite. As I can't afford to eat out as much as I used to, I am buying better quality food to eat at home. I would rather do without new clothes, or a haircut than cut down on eating nutricious and tasty meals.