Another week, another set of confusing messages for consumers about food. First, the Sunday Times told us that it is now official, organic food is better for you. This was followed up by warnings in several papers about adding folic acid to bread. Then a report from the World Cancer Research Fund made no less than ten recommendations to help reduce risks of cancer, including cutting out all processed meat from the diet. Meanwhile, lamb is being recalled because breeding sheep treated with veterinary medicines got into the supply chain, and salmonella has forced closure of a sweet factory.
So how is the consumer supposed to digest this information and how does it help people make sensible choices about the foods they eat? I suspect that most people will simply ignore these messages and carry on with their usual dietary habits, which is a shame because there are relatively easy steps we can take to improve our diet and reduce risks of disease.
So which official body has pronounced that organic is better for you? I would be interested to know. And why such prominence to the potential risks of folic acid in bread when this particular hypothesis about unmetabolised folic acid has been considered and carefully weighed alongside the compelling evidence of benefits as part of the independent advice which led to recommendations for adding folic acid? Again, I would like to know. And since newspapers and media commentators, apparently reeling from the 'bombshell report' from WCRF, asks 'So What IS Safe To Eat?' I would point them and their readers - and everyone for that matter - to look at our Eatwell plate, which provides the information needed to develop a healthy balanced diet.
I'm afraid this sort of confusion simply degrades the debate and makes it much harder for us to engage sensibly with consumers about what the science says about food risks and what we can all do to reduce them.