Why is there horsemeat in our food?

Peter J. Atkins Geography Review 27, 1 (2013), 38-41 Horse meat in our beef burgers? How could this be in a nation that disdains eating equine flesh? We leave that to the French dont we? What I want to suggest is that food is not always what it says on the tin and that this is our fault. The horse meat scandal of 2013 shows that we have allowed the nations food system to be come degraded and that it is high time we did something about it. In 2010 Britons spent only 9.6% of their incomes on food, whereas in France it was 13.4%, Germany 10.9%, Italy 14.9%, Netherlands 11.7%, and Sweden 12.4%. It is true that food prices and living standards vary from country to country but such differences cannot fully explain why British consumers are among the most reluctant to invest their money in high quality (and therefore expensive) food products. In fact it is only the USA (6.8%) and Canada (9.6%) among the large wealthy nations that have also raced the bottom of this league table.

It is probably no coincidence that the USA and the UK have among the highest proportions of obese people in the world, and in both countries the problem is increasing rapidly (Figure 1). There seems to be a link between the desire to consume cheap, high energy foods and the outcome in obesity and bad health that go with eating a lot of salt, sugar and fat (Box).

Box: Some of the health risks of obesity High blood pressure Osteoarthritis High cholesterol Type 2 diabetes Coronary heart disease Stroke Gallbladder disease Sleep apnea and respiratory problems Some cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon) There are six main reasons for the generally poor state of the British diet. The first is our loss of connexion with local food. While the French, Italians and even the Germans rejoice in their regional wines, cheeses and cuisines, our typical foods disappeared in the industrial revolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As a result, people lived in cities and their food was brought increasingly from overseas, where it could be produced more cheaply. There was no contact between producer and consumer and so levels of traceability and trust plummeted. The second reason is directly related to the first. Levels of adulteration were sky high in the century or so before the First World War, so food scares are not new. Cheap bread, for instance, was whitened with alum to simulate the colour of higher quality loaves. Milk was widely adulterated, to the extent that the average pint contained one quarter added water. It was common also to use dyes such as red led and copper salts to make sweets, cheese and pickles look more attractive, even though the chemicals involved were toxic. Eventually these practices were brought under control from the 1870s by legislation and regimes of local authority inspection but progress was slow because of opposition from vested interests in the food industry and from those who argued in favour of freeing the market from government control. The horse meat scandal is directly in this tradition of adulteration. Third, agriculture is becoming more and more intensive. There are a number of factors here, such as the technological one that machinery and agro-chemicals allow farmers to grow a lot more food per hectare. Others include the relatively low profitability of food production, which drives smaller family farms out of business and replaces them with large, efficient units. To take one example, the average size of dairy herds has increased from 31 cows in 1970 to 123 in 2011, and the output of milk per cow over the same period grew from 4,323 to 7,617 litres a year. While at first sight these seem like steps forward, there are two major problems. Despite a natural lifespan of twenty years, cows are nowadays kept only until age

six or seven because they suffer such bodily stress in their production of the extra milk that they become exhausted and unprofitable. In addition, larger herds kept in close proximity are prone to a range of diseases, including bovine tuberculosis, the worst current problem. Over the last 150 years Britain has suffered a series of devastating livestock diseases that seem to be the consequence of greater intensification here than in other countries. These have included rinderpest (cattle plague), foot and mouth, bovine TB, and mad cow disease (BSE). Fourth, there has been a loss of cooking skills. This is entirely understandable in terms of the greater participation of women in the work force but the consequence has been our now wellestablished love affair with supermarket ready meals and fast food. It is now difficult for some people to envisage buying and cooking raw ingredients, despite them being cheaper and healthier than convenience meals. Also the loss of the dinner table as a focus of family meals puts British families at a disadvantage by comparison with the French and Italians, who as a result value food as part of their personal identities and family life. From a young age they know and care more about food.

A fifth point, rarely mentioned, is that portion size is larger in Britain, and especially America, than on the continent. This is obvious if we compare the calories delivered by international food chains for the same meal in different countries (Table 1). So a McDonalds customer in Philadelphia will get 28% more calories for the same meal in Paris. This important cultural variation may help to explain why the French are slimmer than the British as measured by body mass index (BMI)(Figure 2).

The sixth reason for our poor diet and dysfunctional food system is the lack of firm regulation. This is because successive governments have preferred to trust the food industry and to seek voluntary agreements rather than force statutory change. In 2010 the Coalition government even reduced the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency rather than supporting and strengthening it. So the horse meat scandal can hardly have come as a surprise since it follows a series of previous food scares involving low quality, diseased and adulterated food and drink. There is a general reluctance by food processors and

supermarkets to reduce harmful ingredients and increase quality because driving down costs is one of their primary objectives, alongside profitability for their shareholders. Personally I am convinced that a solid inspection regime is essential to deter both the criminal fraudsters and those who cut corners with hygiene and with food quality. One can almost hear the complaints about red tape but history shows us that the local and the central state have an important role to play in keeping our food both genuine and safe. So what conclusion can we draw from the present state of our food industry? We must find alternatives to the industrialised, highly processed, chemically treated foods that dominate our supermarket shelves. This is cheap food per calorie but it puts our health at risk and is responsible for much of the obesity that is spreading around the Global North. The possible alternatives are on display in those European countries that still demand high quality foods, often of local origin and processed by artisans rather than in large factories. In Britain, we must get behind the revival of quality food and drink that is now under way across the country. Which of the following do you think are feasible and desirable courses of action to improve our nations diet? Food literacy, food citizenship, food activism Food policy: control of salt, sugar, fat, alcohol; assistance to artisan producers Teaching cookery and kitchen skills Better meals in schools, hospitals and other public institutions Rebalancing of power between supermarkets and other actors, especially small farmers and growers Fairtrade: ensuring that small farmers in the Global South get a fair share of the retail price Reterritorialization through the development of typical foods that have specific place connexions Organic and environmentally sustainable food sources Certification, verification, traceability: food from trusted suppliers Box schemes for delivery of fruit and vegetables to the doorstep

Allotments and community supported agriculture: consumers participate in growing Farm shops and farmersmarkets Shorter food chains, local food Slow Food

Main points 1. British consumers dont use high quality foods to the same extent as their French or Italian equivalents. 2. The horse meant scandal is just the latest in a long line of food scandals stretching back to the early nineteenth century. 3. Six reasons are given why the British food system is degraded. 4. A number of ways are listed in which alternatives might be found to the low quality, cheap food that dominates the British diet.

For further discussion 1. Do you have any views about school dinners and how they fit into this debate? 2. The economy has been weak for years and many people are either unemployed or cutting back their expenditure. Is it possible in your view to eat good/healthy food under these circumstances? 3. Have you acquired any cookery skills? If not, what are you going to do about it? 4. Is there any point in reading food labels to see if the ingredients are healthy?

Reading Jamies Ministry of Food: http://www.jamieoliver.com/jamies-ministry-of-food/ Food Standards Agency: http://www.food.gov.uk/ Cookery skills: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2003/may/10/foodanddrink.shopping5 Horse meat scandal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-theessential-guide Slow Food: http://www.slowfood.org.uk/

Alternative Food Networks: http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk/research/kneafsey.html