Archive for the ‘Book reviews’ Category

Joanna Blythman, Swallow This: Serving up the food industry’s darkest secrets

Thursday, December 31st, 2015

Published by Fourth Estate, London, 2015

Joanna Blythman’s book is a study of the quality of the packaged food produced by largescale food manufacturers. Extensive investigative journalism led her to conclude that “the defining characteristics of this industry’s products” are “food and drink that is sweet, oily, old, flavoured, coloured, watery, tricky and packed” …. And “we are led to believe that what goes on in food factories is essentially the same as home cooking only scaled up”. She provides extensive evidence that any such view of it is misleading.

Because more people are eating much more foods mass-produced in factories “A growing number of us are simultaneously overfed and undernourished” . Food manufacturers combine sugar, processed fat and salt in their most quickly digested forms, and this combination may well be addictive. These foods contain chemicals with known toxic properties.The industry has a long history of defending its use of controversial ingredients such as partially hydrogenated oils. There is a lot of evidence that consumption of processed food could be a significant cause use of obesity, chronic disease and the rise in reported food allergies.


These companies and corporations comply with energy, intelligence and enthusiasm to company legislation which insists that their principal aim should be to increase the revenue which goes to their shareholders. In addition, they are highly successful in meeting the principal norms for companies and corporations set by politicians, by making substantial contributions to economic growth.

So as to get large profits, the companies need to have a large quantity of products to sell, each item having cost them the minimum amount to produce, package and distribute to customers .Minimising costs involves processes such as frying at high temperatures using oils which will cope with such temperatures and which can be used many times without breaking down.(Page 127). Various additives are used to economise on oil use. The extreme heat and length of time needed to fry some popular foods creates health hazards.

Food deteriorates the longer it takes between the time when it is picked or harvested and the time when the consumer eats it. Lengthening shelf life is a major goal of packaged food companies because it can take time to sell large quantities of packaged foods to consumers spread over wide geographical areas.
The drive to make and sell large quantities of products quickly and cheaply and to keep these products “fresh” for a long time are some of the factors which make packaged food producers continue to use new cheap ingredients which can help them to do this.. They are aided in these endeavours by numerous suppliers of a wide variety of ingredients, few of which are used in domestic cookery.

The quality of packaged food

A central problem in considering the quality of food is that it is multi-dimensional. It includes taste and texture which are both matters of individual tastes and preferences; and also nutritional qualities which can, in principle, be measured more objectively, but are often extremely difficult to measure. The science of nutrition is developing continually. As science develops, assessment of the nutritional value or harm caused by various food ingredients change. For example, developments in nutritional sciences have led to important changes in scientific knowledge about the relative damage to human health caused by eating various types of fats; and to the extent of damage to health caused by eating various type of sugar


The information provided in advertising is always distorted. The principal influence of scientific knowledge (mainly about the nutritional and toxic qualities of food) shoud be exerted through regulatory bodies set up by governments and international organisations.But packaged food manufacturers and the organisations which represent them devote a lot of effort to securing representation on such bodies. They have been highly successful in influencing, and indeed dominating the deliberations and findings of such bodies, both in the UK and worldwide.

For example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was established in 2002 to ensure that foodstuffs regulations were harmonized throughout the European Union to ensure “free and unhindered competition”. EFSA’s President was also a member of the Board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI’s 62 corporate members include Danone, Kellogg, Nestlé’s, McDonald’s Europe, and Unilever. ILSI is entirely funded and operated by corporations and carries out numerous scientific studies for the EU on subjects such as consumer exposure to contaminants. (George, 2015, pages 40-45).

Packaged food manufacturers are very aware that widespread public awareness of the details of their operations could damage their marketing and lobbying efforts. They try hard to conceal such details from the public –and from investigative journalists such as Joanna Blythman. They have linked strategies for marketing the vast quantities of food they produce. They spend vast quantities of money promoting the taste and nutritional benefits of the food they produce through advertising in television, in the press, and through promotion in supermarkets, and more recently in social media.


Food processing companies are generally very successful in complying with the principal requirements of the laws which they have to comply with – in particular the requirement to increase the revenues gained by their shareholders; and with the principal guidance which they get from governmentS in particular the requirements to contribute to economic growth. But Blythman has demonstrated clearly that, in several respects, the food they produce in such enormous quantities often has properties such as toxicity and dangers to the health of their consumers. These companies are typical of companies which control an increasing proportion of the world’s economic output. Their principal motivation is to increase the profits received by their shareholders.

Piketty’s detailed analysis leads to the conclusion that “Capital’s share of income increased in most rich countries between 1970 and 2010…this trend is consistent with …an increase in capital’s bargaining power vis-a-vis labour over the past few decades, which have seen increased mobility of capital and heightened competition between states eager to attract investments… is also possible that this will continue to be the case in future” (Piketty, 2014.).

To increase their profits, as we have seen, processed food companies use production methods which enable them to produce vast quantities of food at very low cost per unit. Their production processes put extreme stress on the ingredients they use, so the companies spend enormous efforts and resources continuously to find and use new ingredients which will tolerate those extreme stresses without breaking down. Some of the changing mixes of ingredients they use have deleterious effects on the nutritional qualities and flavour of the products they produce. In addition, nutritional science is continually producing new findings about the toxicity and nutritional qualities of this increasing number and variety of ingredients.

In order to restrain regulatory bodies set up by governments and international organisations from forcing them to abandon the use of cheap novel ingredients which may well have toxic and health damaging properties, food processing companies make strenuous and highly successful efforts to ensure that their representatives dominate those bodies. Company representatives restrain these bodies from making regulations against the interests of their companies in making profits. Governments of individual states encourage this. An important motivation for Governments is to prevent their countries acquiring reputation for strict regulation which could impair teir ability to retain and attract the operations of the food processing countries with the employment and contribution to economic output which they offer.

To secure the profits that companies work so hard to achieve, they not only have to produce many millions of packets of processed food at very low cost per unit, they also have to persuade millions of customers to buy them. This is facilitated by the ready availability of mass media of communication –such as newspapers, television and social media – whose profitability is highly dependent on their willingness to convey messages to consumers at low cost that those products are nutritious, tasty and fresh. such lies are reinforced by messages on the packages which contain the products, millions of which are distributed mainly via supermarkets. The British Government’s current policies of reducing the scope of the BBC can be seen as part of a strategy of encouraging mass communications media to concentrate their efforts on making profits by disseminating lies which stimulate economic growth, instead of wasting public money on entertaining and informing the public.

Since they started nearly two hundred years ago, packaged food manufacturing companies and corporations have been highly innovative and ingenious in deploying and developing the strategies I have outlined. In her brilliant book, Joanna Blythman has shown, in my view conclusively, that these strategies are unlikely ever to result in those companies producing and marketing nutritious , tasty fresh food. In contrast , her work indicates that the food they produce is likely to remain poor in nutritional qualities and, indeed, often toxic. Company policies and products have been shaped by the requirements placed on the companies by most governments throughout the world to strive to increase the profits received by their shareholders. That the products they produce and sell are generally not very nutritious –and, indeed, often harmful to consumers’ health and/or toxic, is not of great interest to their producers. Nor is it of much interest to the companies that the agricultural and food production processes involved in making products may often be harmful to the environment.

Joanna Blythman has shown conclusively that the nutritional qualities and taste most packaged foods offer to their consumers are often appalling. But the behaviour of food processing companies is highly rational. In Britain, their goals coincide closely with the British government’s goals for the industry. The British Government ‘s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs wants to “promote a British brand, grow exports, improve skills, attract high-flyers and harness data and technology so that the industry can innovate and create jobs.” The British Government is “hugely ambitious for the future of food and farming and its potential to drive growth– that’s why we are bringing together industry to set out a vision for the future with a long-term plan to grow more, buy more and sell more British food”.

Susan George concludes in he book Shadow Sovereigns that Transnational Corporations “are the most powerful collective force in the world today, far outdistancing governments that are more often than not in their pockets anyway”. . It is a far higher priority for governments to attract and retain employment and gain economic growth from the operations of dynamic and innovative corporations, and to ensure that the shareholders’ of those corporations become richer, than to seek to ensure that their populations eat healthy nutritious foods. In tis context, the controversy about Britain staying in or leaving the European Union is a ridiculous irrelevant farce brought to you by courtesy of David Cameron, Boris Johnson et al.

Despite the strenuous noble efforts of highly competent researchers and investigative journalists such as Joanna Blythman, food processing companies’ priorities are unlikely to change any time soon.

George, S., 2015 Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are Seizing Power, Polity, Cambridge
Piketty, T., 2014, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, page 221.
Industry kick-starts work on Great British Food and Farming Plan, 2015, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 16 July.

The Green Paradox

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming,

by Hans-Werner Sinn, published by MIT Press, 2012.

Professor Sinn’s  green paradox is based on the assumption  that “green” measures  will encourage producers of fossil fuels  to extract their products from the ground earlier rather than later. Announcing a future reduction in the demand for fossil fuels speeds up global warming.  Fossil fuel extraction companies will not wait to extract their products from the ground, because the continuation of green policies will put ever increasing downwards pressure on the prices they can secure for fossil fuel. Thus the “green paradox” is that green measures will accelerate the extraction of fossil fuels and thus increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rather than reduce it.

But the  case for the existence of the green paradox is based entirely on assumptions and unverifiable economic theory, not on empirical evidence.

” in the social sciences, the worse the theory … the more it is likely to grip people’s minds. Universities are hot-beds of theory … . This activity is pointless without doing much damage, but every now and then one of these theories escapes … . and attacks the public like the plague: I mean that part of the public that writes or rules for a living, and who need above all to delude themselves and their masters that they know what they are talking about” (Routh, 1980, page 11).

This applies exactly to the green paradox, which is a figment of Professor Sinn’s imagination. There is  therefore no good reason to take it into account in energy and environmental  policy.

Reference: Guy Routh, The Morals of Pay, in Guy Routh, Dorothy Wedderburn and Barbara Wootton (Eds.), The Roots of Pay Inequalities, Low Pay Unit, London, 1980, page 11.

The full review is published in Energy and Environment,2012, vol23, Nos 2&3: 451-453.

Earth Grab

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Earth Grab considers  how global capitalism’s deployment of technology  is liable to lead to disaster  for the planet and  most  of those who live on it. It groups  approaches to the deployment of technology into three:

1. “Geopiracy”. This  relates to geo-engineering. Definitions are contested, but the following extracts from  the work of reputable organisations such as the US  National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society give  the flavour  of what may be involved: deliberately  exerting a cooling influence on the Earth in order to moderate global warming by reflecting sunlight,carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, constructing vertical pipes in the ocean to increase downward heat transfer. Neither I nor Earth Grab are able to give any explanation of why these august bodies should waste  their time considering what is surely sheer madness.

2. “The New Biomassters”. Biomass is targeted by industry as a source of living “green”  carbon which can generate electricity,produce fuels, ferilizers and chemicals and  partially replace “black” fossil carbon –oil,coal and gas.

3. “Capturing Climate Genes”. The world’s six largest agrochemical and seed  corporations are marketing  genetically engineered  crops  designed  to withstand environmental stresses such as heat, cold and drought. Their aim is to monopolise patents to control most of the world’s biomass.

Common characteristic of all these ingenious approaches is that they  represent “technological fixes” to complex worldwide social, economic and technical problems, and that the motivation for advocating, developing and implementing these “solutions”   is the pursuit of profits by corporate giants.

The book identifies  potential  harmful side-effects likely to be caused  by such  initiatives, and proposes numerous  ingenious and imaginative measures by which they should be countered.  But it cannot  provide solutions  likely to be  adopted in  the real world economy,   which  is run by  major corporations aided and abetted by governments and international bodies. A  vast and ever increasing  number of those who govern these bodies believe against all the evidence such as that provided in Earth Grab that  competitive capitalism can be managed and controlled in order to benefit the majority of the world’s population without causing undue damage to the environment.

Bronson, D.,  et al.,  2011,  Earth Grab : Geopiracy, The New Biomassters and Capturing Climate Genes, Oxford, UK., Pambazuka  Press.

The full review was published in Energy and Environment, 2012, Vol23, No4: 755-756.

Evgeny Morozov: The net delusion

Sunday, November 20th, 2011

The Net Delusion provides extensive evidence to refute the myth of technological determinism – specifically the myth that technology can solve enormous political problems.The myth that the internet will liberate the world is typical of the dreams of utopia that have accompanied the initial diffusion of many radical technologies over the past 150 years.

The use of the internet developed rapidly during the period of United States euphoria following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the popular imagination, the role of the policies of the United States Government in bringing this about was overestimated in comparison with the role of internal weaknesses in the Soviet Union. In some respects, this was analogous to the exaggeration of the role of the Bolshevik Revolution in bringing about the collapse of the very  weak Tsarist regime in 1917.

 Generally, revolutionaries learn to use new media before established authoritarian powers. New social media provide powerful weapons to the  opponents of established  political powers for as long as the opposition exploits these new media better than the authorities. But authoritarian governments soon see possibilities for turning the new technologies against the opposition, and  have access to greater resources.

Many people suppose that the internet will help to free oppressed people, but The Net Delusion shows that it has also  become a tool for control.

 The net delusion: how not to liberate the world, by Evgeny Morozov, London, Allen Lane,  2011, xvii + 408 pages.

The full review was published in Prometheus, Volume 29,  issue 2, 2011, pages 194-197

Tim Wu: The Master Switch

Sunday, November 20th, 2011

Wu believes that we need to understand the past if we are to anticipate  the future.  He is surely right to claim that to understand how the use of current information technologies is likely to develop – in particular, the internet – it is necessary to understand the historical patterns of development of previous technologies, and the reasons behind such patterns. The state should support and stimulate the Schumpeterian dynamic of creative destruction, and that impeding this dynamic is never in the public interest. But the concentration of power in relation to the creation, transmission and exhibition of information constitutes a special case for regulation  because  ‘a song, a film, a political speech or a private conversation’ can change lives. Political revolution or genocide may be facilitated by the mass media. Control of mass media works to decide who gets heard and who does not. This makes  regulation of information and communications services in services fundamentally different from regulation of products such as orange juice, electric toasters or running shoes. But the US  Government has always been relatively indifferent to the dangers of abuse of private power. This book includes valuable analysis of the history of information technologies, concentrating on the United States.

 The master switch: the rise and fall of information empires, by Tim Wu, London, Atlantic Books, 2010, 366 pages.

The full review was published in Prometheus, Volume 29, issue 2, 2011,  pages 194-197 

Foresight: the future of food and farming

Friday, November 18th, 2011

Final project report, by Government Office for Science, London, 2011, 208 pp.

This report provides evidence that the world agricultural and food production and distribution system is dysfunctional, in terms of both its failure to provide and distribute the food necessary for keeping the world’s population healthy, and of minimizing environmental damage.

Statistics in the report show that only 57% of the world’s population consumes a reasonable amount and quality of the food needed to keep in good health. About 28% receive too little food, and about 14% consume too much (pp.9–10). Economic growth and technological change have combined to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and severe deprivation. However, there are still many people who suffer from severe deprivation – hunger, starvation and poor health. These are people who have insufficient land on which to grow food for themselves and their families, together with those who are unemployed and cannot afford to buy food.

This  report includes a wealth of statistical and other data, together with bibliographic references, but it lacks historical perspective and a coherent analytical framework. Accordingly, it fails  to achieve  its   aim of identifying ‘the decisions that policy makers need to take to ensure that the  global population  can be fed sustainably and equitably’.

The full review has been published in  Prometheus, 29:3, 309-313, December, 2011.

Tim Jackson, Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

London and Washington DC., Earthscan, 2011, xii + 276 pages. (Summary of book review*)

Economic growth is still important for the world’s poorest nations, but Jackson questions whether it makes sense “for the richer nations, where subsistence needs are largely met and further proliferation of consumer goods adds little to material comfort. … How is it that with so much stuff already, we still hunger for more?”

After the 2008 global financial crisis, there was practically universal consensus on the need to get consumption and the world economy growing again. But Jackson believes that this is unsatisfactory. He calls “for a robust, ecologically-literate macro-economics”. Investment is needed to achieve transition to “a sustainable low-carbon economy” involving “transition from a fossil fuel economy to one based on renewable energy. But “fixing the economy” is only part of the problem. It is also necessary to address the social logic of consumption. The strategy he proposes rejects the centrality of material commodities as the basis for profitability. It replaces them with the idea of an economy designed explicitly around delivering the capabilities for human flourishing which will have to be delivered with considerably less material input.Jackson maintains that unproductive status competition increases material throughput and creates distress. But I suggest that status competition generates enormous profits, and that it is difficult to see how corporations are going to be induced to abandon these enormous sources of profits.

The book challenges ideas that are restraining progress towards a better world. Powerful interests which now use enormous resources to promote “unsustainable material accumulation and unproductive status competition” would need to be overcome in order to secure this better world. But Jackson fails to identify agents of change capable of implementing the ideas and strategies he proposes. The absence of consideration of the powerful forces which would offer strong resistance to the policies he advocates conveys the illusion that those policies are feasible. I conclude by comparing Jackson’s volume to an exciting and imaginative cookery book which gives elaborate recipes for making delicious omelettes without the need to break any eggs.

*The full review is published in Energy & Environment • Vol. 22, No. 7, 2011, pages 1013-1016