Sometimes, I hear things on the BBC that make me do a double take For the past day the BBC has been trolling the notion that half the worlds food “is thrown away” with UK supermarkets getting accused of wanton waste. On Today this morning, Evan Davies speculated that “Supermarkets give us things we do not want” and therefore end up jinking such produce. What a remarkably stupid and left wing idea. Has he not heard of supply and demand? Supermarkets only provide things they think we will want. Sure, sometimes they may get it wrong but the notion of Supermarkets imposing “things” that we do not want is detached from all commercial reality. Perhaps Evan has been working for too long for organisation that DOES impose things on us – the BBC?
WHAT A WASTE!
Bookmark the permalink.
Whilst I would agree that Davies is little more than a megaphone for Labour propaganda I think it is simply not true that supermarkets only sell what their customers want.
There is a huge amount of science (much of it hokum) behind the sale of goods and many supemarkets are restricted by logistics, floor space, product availablity, manufacturers, laws etc as to what they can actually sell. Even so, supermarkets often dictate what is sold and they choose what is best for them.
The skill in supemarket sales is convincing the customer that what they want is what the supermarket is offering, of making the bewildering amount of products they sell look like a wide choice. But it is often an illusion.
If they simply offered what the customer wanted then they would go out of business – simply because the customer wants the best quality for the cheapest price. The vast majority of retailers can only offer a compromise on that and they choose the point of compromise.
That said, I was always under the impression that the biggest cause of supermarket waste was ‘sell by dates.’ H&S dictates that these are often far shorter than necessary resulting in an extraordinary amount of waste.
Whether or not the BBCs trope of the day is true is, of course, is independant of the facts.
But most products in supermarket are processed, tinned, frozen, packaged. The only waste will come from perishables like bread, fruit and veg and meat.
And today supermarkets have a very short chain of supply. In reality they only carry around 3 days worth of food. Supermarkets today are more efficient and less wasteful than they were 20 yrs ago with the introduction of electronic stock taking.
But perhaps the main problem is that we do not like eating fruit and veg anymore!
As for “Supermarkets give us things we do not want” why not change that to “The BBC give us things we do not want”, pot kettle black Evans. What use is Media City? It doesn’t have enough microwaves for the staffs processed ready meals!
Let’s just hope that people who have been sold things they don’t want by a supermarket aren’t in positions of responsibility.
Likewise people who don’t understand the difference between “use by” and “best before”.
Really!!! There are people who are able to operate self service tills but can’t figure out the difference between “use by” and “best before”, the clue is in the phrase and they are only two words long.
Once you’ve figured out those two little teasers it’s only a small step to figure out what “sell by” means.
If a citizen can’t demonstrate an understanding of those little conundrums, perhaps they shouldn’t be allowed into a shop without supervision. They definitely shouldn’t be allowed any voting rights and personally I’d take away any benefits if they are going to throw them away through sheer ignorance.
Quite right. Almost. Perhaps I should have been more explicit?
Food is often thrown away by shops after the ‘sell by’ date as it is a guide for the staff not the customer. That is pure waste, especially if the ‘use by’ date is some time after the ‘sell by’ date. IIRC there was talk of forcing the removal of ‘sell by’ dates from produce for this very reason. Not sure if this is now law?
‘Best before’ are of little relevance to supermarkets as they only really care about the ‘use by’ and ‘sell by ‘ dates. Unless the food can contain salmonella, like eggs or chicken, in which case its pot luck on a case of the Scargills after the ‘best before’ date.
Shops have, by law, to waste food after its ‘use by’ date – which is also often waste as generally the food is fit to eat for a couple of days afterwards. Although personally I wouldn’t risk shellfish after the ‘use by’ date – well not again 🙁
It depends on the shops’ policy. Often ‘Sell By’ comes before ‘use by’ for no good reason. And that is, surely you agree, wasteful?
As to customers buying what they don’t want – you obviously haven’t watched ‘Open All Hours’ … 😉
This is all to do with the fact that the supermarkets KNOW what the true population of the UK is
.
“The statistic that dare not speak its name” you will find a copy of an article in the Independent (which has since disappeared) here:
http://corrugated-soundbite.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/real-population-of-uk.html
In it the supermarkets’ calculated that the true population of the UK was 80 to 90 million, based on the food sold, allowing for wastage – and that was six years ago!
You only have to look at our gridlocked roads and railways, running out of water, public services at breaking point to know something does not add up.
Pro multi culties are putting this half of all food is thrown away scam out there to try and disguise what the population of the UK really is.
If it ever went mainstream the public outcry would be so huge that Government would HAVE to do something about it, and we wouldn’t want that now, would we, BBC?
Well…I dont think running out of water is going to be a problem any time soon! 🙂
Regards
Mailman
“What a remarkably stupid and left wing idea. Has he not heard of supply and demand?”…………………………. What a remarkably stupid statement. Has David never heard of marketing – the device by which suppliers influence the consumer to demand their product.
Supermarkets do “give us things we do not want” as most consumers find it hard to turn down the “bargain” of buy one, get one free; three for the price of two; buy 3 for £x etc., whether they actually need the product in that quantity or note.
Pre-packed products such as cheese, cold meats, fruit and vegetables also lead to consumers purchasing quantities in excess of their actual need – this does not bother the supplier or the supermarket as they are paid for what they supply as opposed to what the customer uses.
So you do not believe humans possess free will?
Only to some extent – most actions are a function of previous experience and sensory input. If you control the input e.g. by propaganda then you can in some measure control the responses. Similarly previous (childhood) experience is under control (to some extent) of teachers as well as parents.
There are also, of course external pressures e.g. people acting in a crowd are far more likely to act in accordance with the prevailing mood of the crowd than against it.
The art of politics is to bring people into agreeing with your position by using those functions above.
Not to “some extent”, they have 100% free will. If they choose not to excercise it that is a consequence of free will, not a lack of free will. Poly education John eh? Ask for your money back.
Of course people have free will but that will can be influenced hence marketing, advertising etc.
By your own argument this site should not exist as no matter how “biased” the BBC are perceived by David etc. it does not really matter because of the “free will” of every individual.
LOL ok let me get this people have the free will we are only allowed to have by marketing and advertising ? so therefore your defense of BBC propaganda is purely because you were indoctrinated to buy the product ? a ‘weak willed sucker’ as me mate in sales would call you!!
Being deliberately obtuse seems to be a common trait on this board. Every individual has a mind of their own. However, their actions will be influenced by any number of things, including marketing, peer pressure, belief systems etc. If marketing and advertising does not influence behaviour it would appear that many large corporations are wasting a substantial amount of money.
‘Being deliberately obtuse seems to be a common trait on this board.’
Says the guy who thinks nothing of penning..
‘What a remarkably stupid statement.’
And doesn’t appear to understand much of anything before jerking knees.
But for a hypocritical, compulsive, delusional, contrarian DOTI it is funny, ironically, so kudos.
I appear to have a stalker – Must be doing something right !!
“But for a hypocritical, compulsive, delusional, contrarian DOTI it is funny, ironically, so kudos”……………….. at least I am not paranoid and so blinded by prejudice that I see “bias” in everything the BBC says or does.
‘I appear to have a stalker – Must be doing something right !!’
Coming from one who is on Flokk duty and swoops the minute Alan or David posts to write the first thing that pops to mind so long as it’s silly or rude or both… irony overload.
As to doing something right, if writing tripe that begs to be pwnd… result!
Remember, paranoia is not knowing they are out to get you, it’s coming to forums that post facts and URLs about those you have an unhealthy bond with to claim… well, the stuff you come out with, especially if you think what you come out with is going to stop it.
ps: the default self-liking. Best not. But I see you do have a groupie or two, or access to other accounts. Birds of a feather.
‘at least I am not paranoid and so blinded by prejudice that I see “bias” in everything the BBC says or does.’
I’ll assume you agree with all the instances of bias covered on here that you choose not to comment on, then. Otherwise why ignore the massively contentious coverage of global warming by the BBC (for example) but then comment on a relatively innocuous post such as this one.
Where “Guset Who” goes “johnnythefish” dutifully follows.
It is rather obvious here that you are avoiding johnnythefish’s point
Of coure he is. Just another overpaid leftist BBC researcher, I’d guess. No real world experience – just a head full of Labour mantras.
‘Where “Guset Who” goes’
Stay classy, Mr. A.
If Jim were still here you’d get a yellow card for that. Not for the childish home-team (3!) pleasing attempt, but for eroding the moral high ground foundations ever further.
I’m of course always grateful to any who may share my journey, especially if it is in support and out in the open. Especially with an actual blog-relevant point as opposed to man-playing snipes from cover.
I wonder how your ‘followers’, if evidently keen to remain mere anonymous box-tickers, feel in championing the cause of one who comes here to solely expose the BBC mindset so… ‘ably’?
That would be true if we didn’t have to pay for the BBC.
Indeed, you will find it often expressed on here that The Mail, Telegraph, Sky or whatever are free to publish and broadcast whatever they want because no-one is obliged (ie has their free will removed) to fund their output.
apparently not – the sucsess of Bid TV demonstrates this fact .;-)
2 for 1 and 3 for the price of 2 are pretty good if its stuff you will actually be using, cheese, cold meats etc, One in the fridge and the rest in the freezer – seemples 🙂
Exactly. I think it’s called budgeting, a concept lost on the Blair generation and those sold on the New Labour ideology of borrow and spend today and let tomorrow look after itself. (N.B. most of the bogofs are on non-perishables anyway.)
‘Supermarkets do “give us things we do not want” as most consumers find it hard to turn down the “bargain” of buy one, get one free’
Back from the slopes then? Here was me thinking the 2013 budget had seen some cuts.
‘Finding it hard to turn down..’ still involves personal choice and actual options.
It is only on matters of unique funding on the basis of compulsion that all UK ‘consumers’ of broadcast signals have NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY.
But thanks for raising that clear point of difference.
What slopes are you referring to? As we have never met it is strange that you presume to know so much about me. To date however, I can advise that every assumption you have made has been wide of the mark.
As for having “NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY”, you can choose not to comply and accept any repercussions non-compliance may bring.
As someone recently opined:
‘What a remarkably stupid statement’
Though to be accurate, you have crammed in more than a few more.
That last puts you in a league of your own on this debate or any other regarding the national broadcast treasure you so ‘ably’ defend.
Welcome back. Sorely missed.
‘To date however, I can advise that every assumption you have made has been wide of the mark.’
Albaman: a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma (yawn).
‘you can choose not to comply and accept any repercussions non-compliance may bring.’
Are you actively advocating law-breaking beyond raising concerns in free speech?
As one who appears to feel they are on the side of those whose financial interests such law-breaking may (further – Savile looks like making a dent on top of hush and sidestep internal compo) compromise, would you be at the door of any taking a stand ‘only obeying orders’ ?
Best shred your file when the revolution comes.
‘most consumers find it hard to turn down the “bargain” of buy one, get one free; three for the price of two; buy 3 for £x etc., whether they actually need the product in that quantity or note.’ – Then they should use common sense and/or practice self-restraint.
“Supermarkets give us things we do not want”
Halal meat, for one.
Did anybody here ever get the notion from the BBC that an awful lot of food has been spoiled or thrown away, due to the obsessive and draconian health and safety aspects so beloved by the EU and “consumer champions” such as the BBC (Food Programme, You and Yours, Womans Hour…all the moany padded stuff before the men get home eh…the digital equivalent of bitching over the garden fence, whilst Rosita hangs out the washing for them!)?
Any “campaigning group” getting asked by the BBC to rescind those stupid sell by/best before dates that are unnecessarily narrow and unscientific, as far as I can tell?
Any assault on stupid EU Directives that punish the small trader, and force the supermarkets to factor in the waste in the form of higher prices( not that they need the excuse at all times).
Nah, thought not!
Still-not all bad news.
1. The BBC had nothing to do with Savile-official…back to your lives now citizens!
2. Rantzen was grateful that the report “gave a voice to the victims”…they did not blow the whistle( well, actually they did, if FloRida is to be believed!)…they kept their guilty little sectrets to themselves and now this report gives closure to the victim!
Anybody else sense that she herself reckons she was a victim…as was the BBC itself…it`s ALWAYS about them isn`t it?
Rantzen was talking about the victims-but she really was describing herself as a collaborator…and that is exactly all that the BBC will now be seeking…victimhood!
Desperate.
3. You and Yours just now tells me of Mondays programme where Belfast foodie critics will somehow be taking on the flag waving banshees of the Loyalists over there….I`ll not be listening, but hope somebody does to tell us how it panned out over there…my imagination is running riot at the moment…as it must do for any Beeboid in Gaza I`d expect!
4. Truly mad stuff-but the men aren`t home, so the BBC gets away with it…Waitrose custard for the water cannon perhaps?…rubber bullets being replaced by Whittingstalls almond noisettes?…oh , the crazy BBC eh?
5. Peter White will be doing it-the disabled one who needed to go to New York before Christmas to see his diasbility oppo there for himself…what cost?…what shopping?…not at all. He had to experience the NYC grouches pains for himself.
What price do you put on that?..well £12,000 since you`re asking!
I have been trying to get to the bottom of this report since it first started gaining traction, mainly as a ‘PRasnews’ item in the Graun and Indy, where it looked like they had not even changed the headline provided by that well know food supply logistics outfit… the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.
There is no doubt that there is food waste, and some supermarket practices are making it worse than it needs be – BOGOFs for example on perishables – but where this half comes from is proving as tricky to get numbers that add up on as a wind turbine’s actual useful output.
As it suits them it so far appears the usual suspects have grabbed what they liked the look of and run with it, and it alone. No questions asked.
Half… is a lot. I’d like to see proper numbers.
Meanwhile I look forward to the BBC trotting out the Mole Sexing Society’s views on Higgs Boson next, so long as as it ‘could’ ‘suggest’ AGW is extremer and more ‘we’re doomier’ than ever.
Well spotted sir!
Who else would provide the expertise on food policy, but the IME…fresh from their brilliant management of the floods and drainage systems in the West Country .
I`m assuming the better brains of theirs were all engaged in ensuring the legacy of the Olympic Games in London….so I`m guessing the sailing off Weymouth didn`t need them to actually get out of town to unblock a drain or two.
Ah well-at least we can see who was behind the “floods leaching the vitamins and goodness out of last years crops” now…
I never thought that food science at the BBC peaked with Fanny, Johnny, Graham, Clement and Magnus….
You forget. In BBC land “supermarkets” are bad. This is because they are big. And please themselves about the policies they pursue. And are unaccountable. And hold the world to ransom because they are monopolies. And are run by distant managers…hang on…does that remind you of anyone?
Sainsbury’s (Labour peer) and the Co-op (Labour) are good – Tesco (monopolistic) and Asda (part of evil American Wal-Mart) are bad.
The mists are clearing….
http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/labour-promises-zero-food-waste-policy-at-fpa-seminar/?
‘ if elected, she would look to eradicate food waste entirely.’
That’s quite a claim. Well, a ‘looked to’ version of one.
I will be interested in whether the finest marker rate talented minds in the BBC political, economic or science beats might be keen to challenge how, exactly, she will set about ensuring that statistic is lived up to…. at all… much less without the usual crippling levy costs that will be imposed on businesses and consumers to tick another freakin’ daft box.
Waste… is inevitable. Look at the public sector. Especially the BBC.
The key is minimising it. Don’t look at government.
‘Eradication’ is only for the calibre of wannabe Minisiter quoted here, and those who would see her into power.
Sweet thought from this Liebour dimwit, and one that would be fully implemented if left to the free market as it is in other countries, eg. throughout Africa, India etc.
But not in the UK, where EU Laws, ‘ealth n safety rules and culture of blame/legal action created by Liebour over the last 13 years that specifically prohibit giving food to poor people, or to animals etc.
‘Sweet thought from this Liebour dimwit’
One that in short order has been proven to be based on flawed data and impossible to approach in reality.
Yet the BBC ‘news’ has pushed the error and the hyped claim, and seems as yet uninterested in any reasoned counter.
Unique. If not for them.
There do seem many dimwits around, if oddly grouped in one place.
There will be a clash of public sector interests if she intends to ‘eradicate’ food waste – an all-out war between the officious waste eradicators and the suffocating forces of the Health and Safety Executive.
Perhaps, like matter and anti-matter, they’ll collide and annihilate each other in a burst of energy.
Now – a way to harness that energy to heat our homes cheaply….two birds, one stone.
If you want the numbers here is the actual report
http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/environment/global-food
Hmm typical the headline figure of 50% wasted doesn’t come from the IME report but from an FAO Report. What’s the betting that the data in that will be less than persuasive?
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
This is the industry I work in and I would recommend anyone interested to read parts 2 & 2 and the definitions/numbers etc within.
Another point…what about Guess Who’s comment above (3:07pm) , labour making policy ‘on the hoof’ or a coordinated effort to provide the news (BBC) and the solution (“Labour has revealed plans to pursue a zero food waste policy”) the very next day.
‘labour making policy ‘on the hoof’’
Thanks to some considered comment, backed by facts kindly provided by most others here, I am now better educated and informed on this topic than I was.
That the £4Bpa national news monopoly not only has failed in this but seems actively engaged in misleading lack of curiosity at best or inaccurate propaganda at worst, remains a concern.
A co-ordinated BBC/Labour effort or just coincidence? You decide, reader.
One third gets wasted, then, and the 50% is a hyped-up scenario based on the worst-case assumptions of the Swedish Institute. And all because the sheeple are brainwashed into buying in bulk by evil corporations. I wonder how much food waste is generated by the BBC canteen and the fancy restaurants the on-air talent like to frequent?
Taken from the bbC article:
The research on which that claim is based is from 2008 and only looks at potatoes. It concludes that 6% is lost at field level while 22% is either thrown away or diverted to other markets during processing.
Just like the Iraqi death toll which the bBC screamed about a few years, extrapolation is the name of the game and the so called bBC which prides itself on its so called impartial reporting is guilty of blowing things up in which to catch the readers eye.
However the main thread is do we waste food, well walk down any high street on a Sunday or Monday morning and bare witness to the many dumped pieces of food (Pizza/burgers etc) which the drinking classes have a habit of laving behind. For those who bemoan the rise of the supermarket, well what do you want, corner shops. Tell you what i am more than happy to close every supermarket down in order to expose the leftwing wankers what fucking idiots they are. The same with Power stations lets close each and every power station down in the UK for a month. Tell you what any prat who plays the eco card after a month of no power will soon find out what the people really think. Leftwing arseholes are the Prats who don’t know just how well off they are. My only wish is they would offend the Islamic world (no chance of that ) in which to see them all put into practice of saving the world by stopping consuming oxygen
Food waste has happened since time began, we won’t get rid of it any time soon. But blaming it on supermarkets is so fing lame.
The BBC have long given up any pretence to having any knowledge, expertise or interest in science as we`d know it.
It simply reports what any “Institute of Studies” tells it, that happens to be on their Greenpeace, FoE, Common Purpose list of “safe rebels”….none of that concrete thinking, rational reasoning guff if you don`t mind.
It is basically all the “science of attachment”…whether it`s true or not (and it`s not!)…it`s all about serving the higher calling of Lennons world with Marleys being allowed in with drugs and some reggae sauce!
As long as it`s said from “passionate,campaigners”…not some bloody fuddy duddy who has actually DONE real science…then the BBC will supply the gaily painted helium balloon, and pretend it`s a doodlebug.
Do NOT listen to the BBC for science..although Jim Al Khalili seems to at least ASK the right questions-as does Melvyn Bragg on a good day!
Witness David Baddiel on Stargazing the other night-he would know more of the periodic Table than anybody on Newsnight, except for Susan Watts…
Growing up with my parents, and having had a family I never threw away a much as half of what I bought. Now presuming there are many people like me, then by the law of averages there must be many people who eat far less than half of what they buy. But that doesn’t make sense. I think this figure of a half is just not true. What I have thought though is just how much waste hotels, restaurants, and food retailers throw away each day. I learnt that, because of health and safety, such food cannot be given to foodbanks or staff.
Does anyone know how the ‘best before”sell by’ and ‘consume by’ dates are arrived at? There seems to be an a lot of EU regulation but I have yet to find anything that says definitively how any of these dates are arrived at.
All I can find is that for the most part it is left to the manufacturers’ to comply with EU recommendations. What is to stop manufacturers being overly cautious thereby ensuring a greater wastage as consumers throw away more?
Good point.
I did a short butchery course last year and the master butcher said to completely ignore sell-by dates; the human nose is the most reliable instrument ever designed to determine edibility; if it smells off don’t eat it. I also bought some salmon from the fish counter at Saisnbury’s the other week and the monger said they ‘always add two days’.*
One thing is for sure; it’s certainly in the sellers’ interests to reduce the risk of quality deterioration and increase turnover. All the more reason for consumers to use their heads and not defer to (any) authority; an idea which is of course anathema to the left.
*Obviously, as this is a real-life experience and does not have a link on the internet this will be dismissed as ‘man who reasoning’ or such by the usual suspects.
I’m just waiting for some Labour half-brain to tweet about starting a campaign for ‘food waste justice’.
There is definitely an issue with food waste, which is in many ways due to stringent government regulation that results in supermarkets discarding huge amounts of food in order to avoid fines for displaying items past their sell-by dates…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6676345.stm
…but you just know that this will be yet another issue that will get the busy-bodies and nanny-staters champing at the bit to find more ways to restrict OUR choices, for our own good of course. The urge to control the choices of others seems to be an innate quality in those who gravitate towards politics and officialdom, particularly those of a leftist disposition. One moment they’re contemplating the banning of foods that they deem unhealthy, the next they’re considering making all those horridly popular choices more expensive – again, for our own good.
Restrictive, punitive, disapproving, finger wagging, censorious…they’ll never leave us alone.
They are our betters, after all. 👿
If only the bbc, and the media in general, had the same policy, – discarding presenters and ideas that are past their sell by dat – they’d have to get rid of more than half
The Law of Supply and Demand.
Supply: David Vance / Demand: 1,856 Votes = DO NOT WANT.
Hehe.
Wow! Dopey Dez must be on night shift at the Beeb again. He’s got nothing to say on the subject of this thread so posts a drive-by smart-arse ad hominem.
Dez, remember the old saying “BETTER TO STAY SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL THAN TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.”
Yeah, I admit it was a drive-by smart-arse comment; but Vance’s idiot post left such an open goal I just couldn’t resist.
I shall spend the rest of my life feeling suitably ashamed.
And you shall spend the rest of your life being a pompous twit. 🙂
‘And you shall spend the rest of your life being a pompous twit’.
Oh, the irony!
If he and The A team are the best BBC 2013 budget can run to, they must already be looking at the Savile compo pot.
At least a few of the others on occasion attempted an actual, relevant, point.
When not invoking rules on off topic comments or moaning about playing the person, if somewhat hypocritically.
Oh, Guest Who, lighten up you daft bint.
And top of the morning to you too!
I see Mr. A’s sexual confusion is the new playing-the-gender tease Flokk-wide. Unoriginal, if always classy.
As part of a stalker contribution to a hypocrites-only non-stalking sidebar to the actual thread, who can resist chipping in?
I’ll try, but in terms of lightening up, I am unsure I can match the rib-tickling nature of this, mind…:
‘his obvious lack of self awareness and narcissism in trying to blame everyone else (BBC especially) for his failure.’
Defo a gentle rib-tickler to treasure, nationally.
However there was one glimmer of illumination in your latest warm bucket of input above, and that is you are just here for a laugh rather than any serious contribution.
Which is no great surprise, and fine if it floats your boat, keeps you off the streets or from further self-harm.
Just makes it tricky to credit when you get on your high horse about being taken seriously.
Which is why I don’t. But I can see a few still do, bless ’em. The Xmas office party must have been wiiild, man.
thing is
David Vance actually stood to test public opinion
could we have a similar test for the tv tax then?
thought not
scrapthebeeb,
Yes Vance stood the test and spectacularly failed. I applaud him for trying though. Less so his obvious lack of self awareness and narcissism in trying to blame everyone else (BBC especially) for his failure.
Political parties these days (regretfully IMHO) are driven by public opinion polls. They propose what they think they can get away with. The reason Cameron/Thatcher et al haven’t suggested selling off the BBC (despite it going against all of their supposed free market principles) is simply because they know it would be electoral suicide.
Might be nice and cosy on this blog, but it is little more than a collection of peculiar obsessives whistling in the wind.
Better whistling in the wind than talking to yourself from inside your own arse….
Please feel free to apply that principle to ‘likes’ on this blog.
The best thing to do is ignore the sell-by and use-by dates and go back to checking food like we used to do in the ‘old’ days – by sight and smell. It’s the expiration dates that encourage people to throw food away; years ago we didn’t have them, and I bet far less food was thrown away then. I just ignore them entirely.
Bit difficult with packaged meat …
It’s high time the BBC were recycled (into thin air!)
If you go to a local market anywhere in Greece you will see the ugliest, colourless, most mis-shapen examples of fruit and veg which then turns out to be some of the tastiest you’re ever likely to eat – especially the tomatoes and oranges.
Perhaps supermarkets look for size/shape conformity for ease of packaging and transport, and colour to look appetising. Whatever the reason, there’s no justification for it when there is such a food shortage on the planet.
The way I see it, if I buy a loaf of bread then its mine, OK? I have paid the market price for it. So if I want to make it last 3 weeks or eat just one slice and throw the rest away, its nobody else’s damn business. I don’t need the Govt. or some self-appointed moral overseer to tell me what I can and can’t do with my possessions (within the law of course). And if I see any “Occupy Tesco” wankers blocking my access to that fine emporium, I shall seriously have to reconsider my commitment to non-violence.
Half the world’s food wasted?
Oh no it isn’t!
http://brianwernham.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/potato-logic-news-media-repeat-zombie-statistics-on-food-wastage-4
#APMFG
Beyond your comprehensive factual analysis, the issue of what the BBC has as a tweet or headline vs. what even its own copy clarifies is an often febrile one here and, of course, with those lovely folk at CECUTT who can and do swear white is black if they think they can distract enough folk for long enough.
‘“Half” is not the same as “Up to half”
The best we can expect from the DOTIs remaining, because it is perfectly true, is the BBC cannot be held to account because most other media simply ran with that too.
Certainly SKY, Graun & Indy. Probably the others.
Thing is, I am not obliged by law to pay for them being useless and/or venal sources of misinformation.
Brian that’s a good blog and good comments too, well researched.
Take a look at how an Israeli charitable organisation deals with unwanted food. from http://www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com
————————————–
“Unwanted” food feeds Israeli poor. This current article features Leket Israel, an organization that salvages non-saleable crops from farmers and unused food from caterers and ships them to 200 soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other institutions. Leket has a budget of $7.5 million, has 90 staff and 45,000 volunteers a year.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/12/09/3113501/calling-caterers-and-rescuing-carrots-leket-israel-hopes-to-feed-israels-poor
Wee Evan of Today is increasingly careless, increasingly leftist … a few days ago soon after 6am he referred to planned welfare rises as “” a mere 1% “” in a biased intro …
Guest Who, Yoda you are not.
But you are ‘unique’.
‘Not… You are’ surely?
But a welcome bid it must be to what appears a new contributor to the… well, not the topic, but to personal opinion on other commenters. Oddly familiar in style, but as to intended effect, clearly you cannot be serious?
Unless ‘unique ‘ here, as it can be, is meant positively. Guessing not, sadly.
Albaman, some advice if I may?: as only you, Dez and selected others can hold to account legitimately by all accounts, if not stalking how would you describe this awesome debut from the reserve squad?
‘What a remarkably stupid and left wing idea.’
Eh, food packaging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0130rfv
Saturday 12 January 2013
Left hand, meet lefter hand.
Half of all food ‘wasted’ report claims
As much as half of the world’s food, amounting to two billion tonnes worth, is wasted, a UK-based report has claimed
Now links to…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20968076
UK supermarkets reject ‘wasted food’ report claims
’10 January 2013 Last updated at 18:16′
Trust the BBC to get it about,,. er… eventually… er,, right?
Howdy just came upon your blog from Bing after I
typed in, “WHAT A WASTE! Biased BBC” or something similar (can’t quite remember exactly). Anyhow, I’m delighted I found it simply because your content is exactly what I’m searching for (writing a university paper) and I hope you don’t mind
if I gather some information from here and I will of course credit
you as the reference. Many thanks.