The late Victorians recognised that the apple, though a humble fruit, has princely qualities. While the aristocracy vied to display abundant collections of the fruit grown on their estates and discussed them in terms we’d think more fit for wines, the common people enjoyed an increasingly plentiful supply of fruit, as transportation improved and orchards increased. Breeders worked hard to develop new varieties, and, through industrious and competitive cross-breeding, created many of the apples still popular today.

Exotic ancestry

Our most abundant temperate fruit has an exotic ancestry. Although the European crab apple, Malus sylvestris, is a native, if occasional, resident of our hedgerows and woods, the dessert apple, Malus domestica, was brought to this island by the Romans and has far more distant origins.

In the May 2001 edition of the journal of food and cookery, Petit Propos Culinaire, Dr Barrie Juniper describes an expedition to the forests of the Tien Shan mountains, where China, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan meet. After a long and somewhat harrowing journey, he emerges from his yurt one morning to find himself amidst the fragments of a wild fruit forest, surrounded by apparently cultivated apples and other fruit.

This is where the homely apple – along with the quince, pear, plum and apricot – belongs. DNA analysis shows that the apples of these forests at the very heart of the Indo-European continent are the direct ancestors of our familiar apples. The people of the region are able create orchards simply by clearing the less fruitful trees to leave standing the ones that bear large, juicy fruit.

Selecting succulent fruit

Dr Juniper’s hypothesis is that all Malus fruits were originally small, bitter and hard – like rowan berries – attractive to and spread by birds. With the rise of the Tien Shan range and the spread of the Gobi dessert, however, a genetic pool was isolated and the fruit started to evolve to appeal to mammals rather than birds. Under the evolutionary pressure of hungry bears, donkeys and wild pigs – eager for succulent fruit and tending to select the sweeter and juicier examples – apples developed into their modern form.

These fruit were as appealing to humans as to the other mammals. With the rise of civilisation in the nearby “fertile crescent”, we took over the story of the apple, carrying it with us as we traded and developing the necessary skills of grafting, pruning and storing. Ancient Persians, Romans, medieval adventurers and modern growers all contributed to the spread and development of apples as we know them today.

Genetic diversity

The apple has astonishing genetic diversity. The pips of any familiar variety, such as the cox, will grow into trees bearing very different fruit. Every seedling is effectively a new variety of apple. There’s generally some likeness to the parent fruits but also a tendency for the fruit of seedlings to revert toward smaller, more bitter, fruit. Sometimes, however, a highly desirable variety can be born out of accident, or, more often, carefully designed crossing.

To preserve the identity of a particular variety of apple, it must be propagated by grafting or budding. In either case, a small part of the parent tree is taken and grown onto new rootstock, the choice of which determines the size and shape of the tree. In the orchards of Tien Shan, created by selective clearing of the wild fruit forests, every tree is unique. Throughout the rest of the world, there are thousands of hectares of genetically identical trees.

Sporting chances

A further complication is the occasional growth of a branch that bears fruit slightly different to the rest of the tree, often more highly coloured. These “sports“ can also be selected and propagated through grafting, giving us variations on familiar varieties, like the Crimson Cox or Queen Cox.

Apple growing has changed almost beyond recognition in the last few decades, aside from the concentration on ever fewer, transportable and commercially successful varieties. The use of dwarfing rootstocks now allows growers to stock orchards at over 1000 trees an acre, compared to nearer 50 in old orchards. Whilst the trees are nowadays replaced every 10 to 15 years, in the past they might have lasted for more than 50.

Wherever they have been grown, the methods and varieties have been determined by the local geography and culture.

English cookers

Britain as a whole is unusual, in being just about the only country to make a strong and clear distinction between dessert and cooking apples. Certainly in no other country is a cooking apple a major commercial variety – here we have the Bramley’s Seedling. We also have a large range of cider apples, almost all too tannic even for cooking.

The first Bramley was raised by Mary Anne Brailsford around 1810 in her Nottinghamshire garden, coming to recognition almost 40 years later, by which time a butcher by the name of Bramley was living there. The original tree was blown down in the early 1900s, but a branch grew up and still survives. Bramleys were first commercially planted in the 1880s, and became particularly associated with the Wisbech area, where they were traditionally underplanted with gooseberries.

Commercial influences

By the late 19th century, apple growing was becoming increasingly commercialised and orchards were often sited close to railways for transport to the cities. It was only with the coming of the railways that the East became an important area of commercial fruit growing. This pattern can still be discerned on maps of East Anglia. Other quirks of history have affected the geography of apple distribution. Gaymer’s cider works, originally of Banham and later of Attleborough, has left a scattering of small-holders’ orchards in the surrounding area.

East Anglia’s apples

There are many varieties of apple with strong links to places in East Anglia, and many that were first raised here, though very few are still commercially grown. The East of England Apples and Orchards Project (EEAOP), overseen by Martin Skipper and Clare Stimson, is a non-profit-making organisation that seeks to protect and preserve the apples and other orchard fruits of the region. The work of their dedicated volunteers is principally aimed at ensuring the survival of historic varieties that have often dwindled to just a few trees.

At the height of the apple season in October, EEAOP is involved in the running of several “Apple Days”, events celebrating the great fruit. Members of the public are encouraged to come along and learn all about apples, and to bring any fruit from their gardens for identification by EEAOP’s experts. The most popular day, held at Gressenhall, regularly attracts over 1500 visitors, and in 2009 will be held on the 25th October. For complete details of Apple Days, see the websites of EEAOP and Common Ground, originators of the idea.

Identifying apples

Whilst the vast majority of apples belong to a handful of popular varieties, some are more challenging and intriguing. The process of identification for more difficult apples can be long and involved. Since old apple trees often suffer from viruses and other diseases, their fruit might not be typical and a new graft must be grown on to produce clean fruit. The historical records describe fruit of show quality, not the products of long neglected trees.

Once or twice a year, a variety of apple thought lost or even never previously recorded is turned up. Such was the case with Captain Palmer, a variety that Martin Skipper has traced back to a seedling growing in a hedgerow in Gissing, near Diss. The locals recognised the quality of its fruits and took grafts to grow on in their gardens and even for small scale commercial production. Around half a dozen old trees have been identified growing within 5 miles of Gissing, and another 14 or so have since been propagated – enough to secure the variety for the time being.

Lost and found

The list of lost varieties is a long, sad litany, lit only by the glimmer of hope that some of these otherwise vanished apples may yet be discovered growing unknown in a garden, allotment or orchard. The Pineapple Russet was first raised in 1730, and though still extant in 1934, is now thought lost. So too the Norfolk White Stone Pippin, the Monstrous London Pippin, the Ten Shilling Apple, the Transparent Codlin, Gresham Redcoat and Norfolk Paradise – all varieties that were first raised in Norfolk.

EEAOP works to encourage the growing of local varieties wherever possible, whether in gardens, schools, community orchards or commercial orchards. Their website details orchards that can be visited across the region, often created with their advice and support, where local varieties are grown. At Gressenhall’s Roots of Norfolk, many Norfolk varieties have been grafted onto old Bramley trees so that individual trees bear a range of fruit. Thetford’s Forgotten Garden is a magically restored monastic walled garden, with a good complement of young apple trees. Blofield’s Garden Farm is a pick-you-own orchard where the Norfolk varieties have proved enormously popular.

Besides the Apple Days, EEAOP organises other events from time to time. Keep an eye on their website for opportunities to learn how to identify apples or to care for old apple trees. Correct pruning is a skill that is becoming scarce, with many commercial orchards now using a flail, but EEAOP are doing their best to keep it alive in the East. The project also supplies young trees of our regional varieties to those wishing to plant them. The big ambition now is to find a suitable site for a Norfolk orchard, where all the county’s varieties can be preserved, grown and harvested for wider consumption.

As early as 1965, Elspeth Huxley wrote, in Brave new victuals; an inquiry into modern food production:

You cannot sell a blemished apple in the supermarket, but you can sell a tasteless one as long as it is shiny, smooth, even, uniform and bright.

Our climate can’t compete to produce the large, sweet apples that increasingly dominate the global market, but our brisk winters and long summers produce apples of great complexity and subtlety. The apples of the East of England – and elsewhere – deserve rediscovery, recognition and preservation. Thankfully, the East of England Apples and Orchards Project is doing its best to protect our apples.

A version of this article was first published in Suffolk Norfolk Life.

Related posts:

1. Bramley apples, an English culinary icon resurgent
2. Rediscovering English apples
3. Food in East Anglia – Fruit, Vegetables and Oilseeds

Who stands to gain?

The Global Harvest Initiative has identified this target as its express goal:

By 2050, we must eliminate the global productivity gap by sustainably doubling agricultural output to meet the needs of a growing world.

Feeding the world is an undeniably commendable aim, but is a rush to increase agricultural productivity really the best way to go about it? As Paula Crossfield, of Civil Eats, has observed, the target may do more to increase the profits of multinational agri-business than to feed the world’s hungry. Who’s behind the GHI? DuPont, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and John Deere.

More achievable and sustainable approaches to addressing hunger include reducing food waste along the food supply chain, distributing the world’s food more equitably and managing demand for resource-hungry meat and dairy products.

Profligacy

Tristram Stuart examines these issues in his powerful new book, Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Stuart developed a very personal interest in food waste from seeking swill for his pigs as a child to rescuing supermarket waste from bins as a campaigning freegan. He successfully combines personal experience with extensive research to present a compelling argument that profligate waste of food is at the heart of our dysfunctional food system.

Stuart digs up some truly shocking statistics from FAO data: of a total global edible food harvest of 4,600 kCal per person per day, only 2,000 kCal are consumed (1,700 are fed to animals, yielding just 400 in return; 600 are lost between field and food industry, 800 lost in distribution, retail, catering and households). The world is already producing more than twice the amount of food we actually consume.

One of many striking graphs in the book’s appendix plots countries’ GDP against edible crop harvest (including crops fed to livestock) as a percentage of nutritional requirements. In every country except the Democratic Republic of Congo, the harvest is over 100% of requirements, rising (in close correlation to GDP) to over 300% in most of the developed world and over 400% in the USA and Greece. Meat production is an important part of the story, but needn’t be such a drain on resources: another telling morsel of information is that livestock in Kenya are net contributors to food supply, feeding on residues and grass rather than arable crops.

Besides the abundance of informative data, a diverse collection of photos starkly illustrates rampant profligacy in farming, processing and retail.

Positive lessons

Stuart examines, and dismisses, possible arguments that waste is inevitable, identifying positive examples of less wasteful countries and cultures, particularly the Uighurs of China. The FAO identifies a food supply level of 130% as providing a sufficient buffer against crop failure and other supply problems; achieving this would leave enough surplus food at current production levels to feed an additional 3 billion people (without any change to dietary patterns), about the number by which the world’s population is expected to rise by 2050.

All of which suggests that we don’t need another Green Revolution to feed the world, rather to eliminate profligate waste from farm to table. Such a waste revolution will not even require drastic changes to our lifestyles, but will have to be achieved piecemeal, changing the attitude and behaviour of individuals, households, businesses and farms across the world.

Practical local steps to eliminating waste

At a local level, farms and businesses can take relatively simple steps to reduce waste. Production planning, supplying food through more diverse and direct markets, professional supply chain management, raising production standards, collaborating and sharing information, auditing sustainability and monitoring waste: all can contribute to a more efficient and less wasteful food supply system. Provenance, a new food supply and sustainability consultancy, hopes it can play a part in helping businesses achieve such vital steps.

Reducing waste to feed the world was first published on the blog of Provenance: for more sustainable food systems.

Related posts:

1. Twittered morsels: food waste, more waste, plastic bags, palmed off
2. Twittered morsels: foreign cheddar, old seeds, waste tips, pale imitations
3. Twittered morsels: waste not, red diesel, red flag, micro-enterprise distribution chains, good graze, hoki quota

Patient zero, pig zero, farm zero?

This isn’t just about the now-notorious Granjas Carroll de Mexico farm (part-owned by Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer) near La Gloria, in the province of Veracruz, Mexico. This CAFO may or may not be the direct source of the virus, whose first human sufferer may have been four-year-old local villager Edgar Hernández Hernández.

However suggestive the circumstantial evidence, the Smithfield connection is, for now, mere conjecture. Smithfield has stated that it has submitted samples from the farm for testing:

I am also pleased to reconfirm that there is no evidence at this time that the hogs at Veracruz, or anywhere else, have been infected with A(H1N1) influenza.

This notwithstanding and so the public can have full confidence in the health of our Mexican pig herd, yesterday we submitted samples from our farm in Veracruz for further testing under the direction of Mexican governmental authorities, including genetic sequence analysis that will determine what, if any, strains of flu are present. The results will enable us to conclude with certainty that the A(H1N1) strain is not present in our hogs. These tests will take approximately twelve days. [Emphasis added]

There seems to be some stalling for time here, with an extraordinary 12 days to wait for the results (an earlier press release suggested results in “a few days”) and the sampling process has been questioned as apparently carried out by Smithfield itself.

Never mind the final link, what about the rest of the chain?

But even if the virus is ultimately conclusively linked to the Granjas Carroll CAFO, it would only make it the last link in a complex process of virus mutation, reassortment and transmission that’s played out on pig farms over the last 10 (or even 90) years.

The key question for pig producers (and consumers) is whether and to what extent modern methods of pig production, including CAFOs, have exacerbated the development and transmission of new virus strains, including the novel H1N1 virus that now threatens a human pandemic.

Prevalence of swine flu in pigs

There’s no denying that swine flu is a common illness of pigs across the world. The FAO‘s recent briefing on swine influenza states:

SI is widespread and endemic in pig populations worldwide and is responsible for one of the most prevalent respiratory diseases in pigs. In the US, Studies have shown that 30% of the entire US swine population have been exposed to H1N1 since 1930.

… The disease in swine has a strong economic impact on the pig industry in industrial farming systems in the UK alone, SI costs have been estimated at up to £7 per pig [emphasis added]

It’s therefore rather surprising that Smithfield Foods, who produce over 25% of all US pork, are able to claim in a recent press release:

Smithfield Foods, Inc. (NYSE: SFD) today reaffirmed that there is no evidence of the presence of A(H1N1) influenza in any of the company’s swine herds or in its employees at any of its worldwide operations, including those in the United States. (Smithfield, Va., May 3, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/) [emphasis added]

To be fair, Smithfield is probably talking about the novel strain of A(H1N1) influenza here, but it’s at least misleading to suggest that pig herds don’t routinely suffer from closely related viruses. And there’s little forthcoming information on recent prevalence and spread, as reported by New Scientist:

Smithfield Foods, in a statement, insists there are “no clinical signs or symptoms” of swine flu in its pigs or workers in Mexico. That is unsurprising, as the company says it “routinely administers influenza virus vaccination to swine herds and conducts monthly tests for the presence of swine influenza.” The company would not tell New Scientist any more about recent tests. USDA researchers say that while vaccination keeps pigs from getting sick, it does not block infection or shedding of the virus. [emphasis added]

Pigs as “mixing vessels” for the flu virus

DEFRA, amongst others, describes pigs as “mixing vessels” for strains of influenza of different origin, confirms the prevalence of swine influenza in the global herd, and touches on the dangerous implications:

Swine influenza is a disease of pigs caused by a virus (influenza virus). Influenza viruses exist as various types and the most common type found in pigs is Type A.

The virus is present in all pig producing countries, including the UK. Type A strains can also infect other species, including people, although the strains of virus involved are usually different. However pigs have been described as ‘mixing vessels’ for the various influenza virus strains (including the strains causing avian influenza). This means that they may have a role in the spread of influenza viruses between species or in the development of new strains of virus. [emphasis added]

When two different strains of flu virus occupy the same cell, these viruses are able to swap genes, creating a new “reassortant” strain, possibly containing genetic components originating from viruses associated with different species. These reassortant viruses may behave differently from their parent strains, creating the possibility of human pandemic if they can be transmitted to, and then directly between, humans.

Reassortment can occur in any species but is more likely in pigs. The scientific basis for the “mixing vessel” claim is explained by Bruce Janke in a 2008 presentation to the USDA’s APHIS:

Concept [of "mixing vessels"] derived from studies that showed:
• Variation in nucleoprotein in swine greater than in humans or birds
• Pigs have receptors for both avian and mammalian influenza viruses
• Pigs could be infected experimentally with avian viruses of 15 HA subtypes
• Reassortant viruses could be recovered from pigs infected simultaneously with two influenza viruses

What are the novel H1N1 flu virus’s genetic origins?

The genetic make-up of the novel H1N1 virus has been the source of some dispute, focusing on whether it is of entirely swine origin or a triple reassortant of swine, avian and human flu viruses. In fact, it’s both, as virologist Ruben Donis, CDC chief of molecular virology & vaccines, confirms and explains in an interview with ScienceInsider:

Q: Is it of swine origin?
RD: Definitely. It’s almost equidistant to swine viruses from the United States and Eurasia. And it’s a lonely branch there. It doesn’t have any close relatives. [emphasis added]

Donis goes on to explain that these swine viruses already contained genetic components of avian and human flu, which have been present for over 10 years.

Christopher Olsen and others first identified these genes in an H3N2 flu virus found in pigs on US farms in the 1990s. This represented a significant change in the history of influenza in pigs, which was previously restricted almost entirely to the H1N1 virus, itself of avian origin and probably introduced into the pig population during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

In his presentation to the USDA’s APHIS, Bruce Janke chronicles how the triple reassortant H3N2 swine flu later mixed with H1N1, creating a new reassortant H1N1 with both human and avian genes. This reassortant H1N1 became the dominant strain of swine flu in the US pig herd.

It has also been suggested that the presence in the novel strain of genetic components from both North American and Eurasian swine flu strains indicates that the final reassortment could not have occurred in Mexico. Nonsense, says Professor Vincent Racaniello of Virology Blog:

Q: Mexico’s chief epidemiologist insists this virus did not begin in a Mexican pig farm. “Miguel Angel Lezana, Mexico’s chief epidemiologist, told reporters…. the presence of Eurasian swine flu genes in the H1N1 virus makes it unlikely that the disease originated in a Mexican pig farm.”

A: Chief Epidemiologist? He should be fired. The fact that Eurasian swine flu genes are present in no way makes a Mexican origin more unlikely than any other. [emphasis added]

“A disaster waiting to happen” but are CAFOs more responsible than other pig farms?

It’s hard to avoid the New Scientist’s conclusion that “swine flu was a disaster waiting to happen”. Even if we’re lucky enough to escape a pandemic this time, all the pieces remain in place for further threatening reassortment and mutation.

There’s clear scientific consensus on the role pigs play in harbouring and breeding new strains of flu, but does intensive production, as practised in CAFOs, present higher levels of risk than other methods of pig production?

Various factors come into play in answering this question: the numbers of pigs housed in each unit and their stocking density; the bio-security of units, in avoiding cross-contamination between pigs and both human farm-workers and other species such as poultry.

Bio-security: the gap between theory and reality

At least one expert takes the view that modern CAFOs have an advantage over traditional production in the higher bio-security they offer in relation to other species, particularly poultry. As ScienceInsider reports:

There is much concern that pigs infected with this H1N1 might become infected with a dangerous influenza virus from fowl, like the H5N1 that causes avian influenza, leading to a dangerous superbug.

But Christopher Olsen, a swine influenza researcher at the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison says this is unlikely on large hog farms.

“Most modern swine production facilities are single species. The days of a small farmer having pigs and fowl and other animals all mixing together is really unusual in terms of modern commercial swine. My opinion is modern swine facilities have better biosecurity than old-time farms.”

The “most” causes some concern, as just a single lapse of bio-security can have devastating consequences. Indeed, Caroline Lucas has suggested in The Guardian that the critical reassortment of swine, avian and human influenza strains may have occurred in CAFO(s) where pigs and poultry were housed in close proximity, with workers going between them:

Dr Greger has highlighted how some experts blamed the emergence of the original 1998 virus on intensive farming practices in the US, where pigs and poultry are raised in extremely cramped conditions, in adjacent sheds – and tended to by the same staff. [emphasis added]

Another reported lapse in bio-security is the use in CAFOs of water from ponds frequented by wild fowl:

[...] an unknown pathogen [...] that infected two groups of pigs at separate production facilities in 2006. Both facilities used pond water frequented by migrating waterfowl.

Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and an expert on pathogen evolution, is stark in her criticism of CAFO’s bio-security, telling David Kirby of the Huffington Post:

CAFOs are not biosecure. They have high rates of ventilation and enormous number of animals that would die of heat stress unless the building was ventilated. We and others have measured bacteria and viruses in the environment around poultry and swine houses. They are carried by flies, too. These places are not bio-secure going in – or going out. [emphasis added]

Numbers and density

Silbergeld goes on to assert that the intensive nature of CAFOs is responsible for a significantly heightened level of risk in the evolution of new flu viruses:

These mixing bowls of intensive operations of chickens and pigs are contributing to speeding up viral evolution. I think CAFOs are contributing.
[But, what about traditional outdoor farms? Aren't those animals even more susceptible to wild type viruses than animals kept indoors, as industry claims?] Well, let’s say that animals in confinement are ten times less likely to be infected by wild animals. But there are 100 times as many of them. You do the math. [emphasis added]

Ruth Watkins – farmer and former lecturer in clinical virology, Imperial College School of Medecine, London – agrees that the numbers and density (and movement) of pigs are critical, stating in an email to Warmwell:

[...] big commercial units with hundreds and thousands of pigs are essential to provide the immune driven mutation, and the mixing, the reassortment opportunities offered by dual or multiple infections and the onward transmission opportunity for newly reassorted viruses.

Successful reassorted viruses do not occur as frequently as you might think. The newly reassorted virus must exit the pig in sufficient quantity to be infectious so that it has competed in the host with the original infecting virus to infect new cells, be competent to infect a new host, to compete with other prevalent influenza viruses. If successful in all these respects it must be spread to new populations and what better route than commercial and globalised trade of piglets.

If one thinks of the small farm with animals outside where are the opportunities for this with influenza? Even if an interesting new virus does emerge it has a small number of animals to infect (influenza viruses give rise to acute infections so that virus is shed for a short period of time only) so where does it go next? It most likely comes to a dead end. [Emphasis added]

The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production‘s report Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America stresses a similar point:

While transmission of new or novel viruses from animals to humans, such as avian or swine influenza, seems a rather infrequent event today (Gray et al., 2007; Myers, Olsen et al., 2007), the continual cycling of viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or flocks increases opportunities for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission. In addition, as noted earlier, agricultural workers serve as a bridging population between their communities and the animals in large confinement facilities (Myers et al., 2006; Saenz et al., 2006). Such novel viruses not only put the workers and animals at risk of infection but also may increase the risk of disease transmission to the communities where the workers live. [Emphasis added]

A desperate need for answers and action

It appears that even the US National Pork Board’s own expert accepts the need for action in response to the virus threat from modern pig production, as David Kirby reports:

The Pork Board’s Dr. Wagstrom said her industry has been working closely with the US Government for nearly a year to set up a new monitoring and rapid animal-identification system for emerging swine flu strains in the U.S. herd. Wagstrom added that the new virus “could have” emerged from a Mexican swine CAFO, though she doesn’t think birds were involved.

There may be no smoking gun (a conclusive demonstration of cause and effect is a tall order), but there’s a large body of evidence suggesting that intensive pig production has some difficult questions to answer. At the very least, vastly improved monitoring is required to track the emergence of virus strains and reduce their potential to spread. Grist’s Tom Philpott reports that the USDA has very recently taken steps to introduce a federal screening programme.

However, further investigation and research is also needed into the role of CAFOs in the evolution of viruses. As a negative externality, alongside the fostering of other pathogens (such as MRSA), animal welfare and pollution issues, it brings into question the very viability of such intensive production.

Related posts:

1. Don’t just blame the pigs: is this swine flu, bird flu or human flu?
2. Flu story: a history of swine influenza from 1918 to 2009
3. International organisations reassert safety of pork

While the cereal industry appears happy to produce a limited range of healthier cereals, it’s also committed to the continued production and marketing of less healthy lines.

Which? cereals: Going against the Grain

In its Going Against the Grain report (published today), Which? acknowledges some improvements in the nutritional content of cereals over recent years but highlights some alarming indications of just how much further improvement is needed:

• Of 100 surveyed cereals, nearly 60% contained more sugar than a jam doughnut (per recommended serving)
• Of 100 surveyed cereals, 16% contained as much or more salt than a packet of salt and vinegar crisps
• Only 1 cereal marketed at children wasn’t high in sugar
• Only 1 cereal qualifies for a nutritional green light for its sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt content – Nestlé’s Shredded Wheat

Shredded Wheat: one good cereal

Cereal offenders and healthier options

The Which? report assesses the nutritional content of 100 breakfast cereals, detailing the salt, fat, saturated fat and sugar contents per 100g, and listing the worst offenders and healthier options in each category. Amongst the worst offenders are Morrisons Choco Crackles (38.4g sugar per 100g) and Tesco Special Flakes (2g salt per 100g).

More information and full nutritional details can be found in the report, available at the Choosing a healthy breakfast cereal pages of the Which? website.

Comparing cereals and servings

Comparing cereals isn’t straightforward: manufacturers variously provide nutritional details for recommended servings (of various sizes), per 100g and with or without milk. Some use the FSA‘s recommended traffic light labelling system, while others quote GDAs. Adding to this confusion, some cereals aimed at children misleadingly cite adult GDAs.

Recommended serving or portion sizes are another source of confusion, varying between 25g and 50g. But we tend to eat more than the recommended serving anyhow.

Research commissioned by the FSA examined the difference between actual and recommended servings, finding that between 75% and 90% of consumers tended to eat more than the recommended amount of various cereals, with mean actual servings between 65% and 150% larger than those recommended.

Frosted beef?

Some breakfast cereals also contain animal products. A recent Food Magazine article, Where’s the beef? In your breakfast cereal, investigated unexpected and hidden animal products in food and drink products, finding beef gelatine openly listed as an ingredient of Kellogg’s Frosted Wheats. Although the ingredients clearly listed the beef gelatine in this case, there was no other indication that the product was unsuitable for vegetarians.

There’s little we can take for granted about the ingredients of breakfast cereals. The only way to be sure of the actual levels of salt, sugar, fat and other ingredients that we’ll consume is to scrutinise labels with a thorough understanding of ingredients, nutritional requirements and our own consumption.

Despite the apparent profusion of information on product labels, it can be difficult to find full details of ingredients and composition. Even Which?’s own researchers weren’t able to complete their analysis of the 100 breakfast cereals, as information simply wasn’t available on levels of intrinsic and added sugars, an essential distinction for traffic light labelling.

Towards healthier cereals

Which? sets out a call to action for further improvements to the content and marketing of breakfast cereals:

• Stop marketing cereals high in sugar, salt or fat to children.
• Use the labelling scheme that works best for consumers – the FSA’s traffic light labelling system. This makes it easy for consumers to identify the amounts of fat, sugar, salt and saturates in their foods.
• Make further cuts to the levels of sugar and salt products contain, where possible.
• Stop making health and nutrition claims on less healthy products, so that consumers are not misled.
• Develop and market a wider range of healthy cereals, so that consumers who want to eat healthily have a greater choice.
• Extend the TV advertising restrictions so that less healthy foods aren’t targeted at children during programmes they are most likely to watch.
• Ensure restrictions cover the wide range of non-broadcast methods (such as product packaging, sponsorship and the internet) that are currently used to promote less healthy food to children.

(Which? Going against the Grain)

These seem entirely reasonable demands to make of a range of products that most people expect to be healthy anyhow.

Will cereal manufacturers respond positively?

Indications of the likely response of the food industry are not promising. Earlier this month, Nestlé responded to earlier calls for it to change its unhealthy cereal products by asserting that:

the company was committed to ongoing reformulation for a healthier range of breakfast cereals, it was still providing sweeter, more taste-focused products as well

So, while Nestlé produces one of the healthiest cereals on the market, Shredded Wheat, and is happy to reformulate its “healthier range”, it’s committed to a strategy of maintaining the rest of its range with no change.

Update – Kellogg’s responds to criticism

In response to the widespread reporting of the high sugar content of many cereals, Kellogg’s has posted some “helpful facts” about their cereals on its website, under the heading Worried about sugar?:

There have been a lot of reports in the press last week about sugar in breakfast cereals and, as a result, you might have questions. If so, you may find the following facts about our food helpful…

• An average bowl of our cereals with milk contains approximately 170 cals. That’s less than 10% of your recommended guideline daily calorie intake
• Nutritionists recommend that a meal should give you around 25% of your nutritional requirements – a bowl of cereals, with milk, is well below that
• A bowl of sweetened cereals, such as Frosties, contains around two teaspoons of sugar – less than a couple of slices of toast and jam, a piece of fruit and yoghurt or a cup of sweetened tea
• Recent reports talk about high sugar levels in some cereals but those reports look at 100g of cereals. People eat cereals, such as Special K, in 30g portions so you’d need to eat more than three bowls full to take in the levels of sugar quoted in these reports
• We label every box of cereal we sell with the nutritional details per portion. That way people can make easy comparisons between products and brands
• Independent scientific research consistently proves that people who eat breakfast cereals, regardless of how much sugar is in them, tend to have a lower body mass index (are slimmer) than those that don’t
• One in five of us skip breakfast regularly and, every year, children spend up to £500m on sweet treats on the way to school instead of eating a bowl of cereal
• That means they’re missing out on a breakfast that contains fibre, vitamins, iron and calcium

So look beyond the hype, read the labels and make up your own mind. If you do you’ll find that breakfast cereals are not only a convenient choice but a nutritious one too.

Direct answers to the demands of the Which? call to action (such as not to market the most sugary cereals at children and not to make misleading health claims) and acknowledgement of other issues (for example that most of us eat more than the recommended portion sizes) would have been more helpful still.

It’s worth repeating: “look beyond the hype, read the labels and make up your own mind”.

Related posts:

1. No added colours (don’t mention the flavourings, sugar, calcium carbonate, salt, glucose-fructose syrup…)

There’s currently no scientific certainty about the source of the new Mexican strain of H1N1 flu, nor even any evidence of the virus circulating in pigs or that it could infect pigs, but circumstantial evidence is emerging that should direct epidemiological investigations.

Searching for patient zero

Crucial to identifying the source of the virus is pin-pointing the first human sufferer. “Patient zero” was first thought to have been a woman from Oaxaca, admitted to hospital on 8th April with suspected pneumonia, but subsequently confirmed as the first known case of the new virus. Oaxaca is not a pig-producing area and the woman appears to have had no contact with pigs.

However, a new patient zero has emerged more recently: a four year-old boy, from the village of La Gloria in the province of Veracruz, who is now confirmed to have contracted the new strain 2 weeks previously (happily he recovered, though at least 2 infants died from similar symptoms, but are as yet unconfirmed as new flu strain).

The La Gloria case presents closer circumstantial links with pigs, as Veracruz is a major pig-producing area, with a large industrial pig production operation 12 miles from the village.

Examining the circumstantial evidence

While the mainstream media concentrated on the spread and pandemic potential of the new virus, bloggers were the first to investigate and question the circumstantial suggestions that the new strain may have emerged from intensive pig production units, or CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

Edmund Harris of the UK’s Local Foods Research blog has summarised early reports – by Tom Philpott at Grist, Paula Crossfield at Civil Eats and Paula Hay at Peak Oil Entrepreneur – of the possible link between the outbreak and the pig production facilities of Granjas Carroll, a Mexican subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pig producer. (Local Foods Research has a later update and photos of the Granjas Carroll site at La Gloria.)

Unsurprisingly, Smithfield has rejected these suggestions, asserting that:

it has found no clinical signs or symptoms of the presence of swine influenza in the company’s swine herd or its employees at its joint ventures in Mexico

Meanwhile, over at Fair Food Fight, hardly a friend of big agri-business, El Dragón is disappointed by the weakness of Tom Philpott’s arguments, particularly the reliance on dubious sources.

Questions but no certainty

There are important questions to ask about the source of the virus but it’s important to keep in mind the essential difference between circumstance and epidemiology.

There simply isn’t any current scientific certainty about the source of virus, though circumstantial evidence should help in directing epidemiological investigations.

The speed of bloggers to raise pertinent questions about the possible source of the new strain is admirable. They may have missed some important scientific distinctions (eg between viruses and bacteria), made unscientific inferences from admittedly unpleasant aspects of the production units (eg flies), presented the only available sources (ie locals) as more reliable than they truly are, and been over-hasty in asserting their conclusions; but this is no different from the mainstream media, which has since rushed to ask the same questions and repeated many of the same mistakes.

A Times headline today proclaims: “Mexico outbreak traced to ‘manure lagoons’ at pig farm”. No, not yet anyhow.

How risky is industrial livestock production?

The Huffington Post has reported on the wider risk from industrial livestock production of emergent new viruses and pathogens, citing the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production‘s apparently prescient warning:

The continual cycling of swine influenza viruses and other animal pathogens in large herds or flocks provides increased opportunity for the generation of novel viruses through mutation or recombinant events that could result in more efficient human-to-human transmission of these viruses. In addition, agricultural workers serve as a bridging population between their communities and the animals in large confinement facilities. This bridging increases the risk of novel virus generation in that human viruses may enter the herds or flocks and adapt to the animals.

While the development of industrial farming methods over the past 50 years has coincided with a period of relatively limited pandemic activity, there are worrying indications that we’re running a high risk and just may have finally run out of luck.

Only rigourous science can conclusively answer these questions – and provide hope of containing the outbreak.

Related posts:

1. Don’t just blame the pigs: is this swine flu, bird flu or human flu?
2. Pandemic potential: is intensive pig production responsible?
3. Flu story: a history of swine influenza from 1918 to 2009

The new strain of the H1N1 influenza virus that has emerged in Mexico, with particular virulence, and is now spreading to other parts of the globe is almost universally reported as swine flu. The name suggests a clear and direct link with pigs, but is it really that simple?

What’s the connection with pigs?

ProMED explains that the term “swine flu” refers to the history and evolution of H1N1 viruses in general. (Thanks to the always excellent and sober Warmwell, a first point of reference for any question of livestock disease, for pointing me to this source)

Although H1N1 may have first originated in birds, earlier strains have circulated and resulted in mortality in pig and human populations, with frequent transmission demonstrated from pigs to humans.

In the particular case of the current, new strain of H1N1, New Scientist reports that the genetic make-up is a combination of pig, bird and human flu viruses.

A more accurate name: Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human

ProMED prefers the description “Influenza A (H1N1) virus, human”, fearing that “swine flu” is infelicitous, because:

there really does appear to be no exposure to swine and some evidence (father, daughter pair in the US) of transmission without exposure to animals

and, worse, dangerously misleading, because it:

will imply a simple, zoonotic transmission between swine and people, when in reality is origin and epidemiology is likely to be much more complex
(ProMED update, 26th April 2009)

The key unanswered question is when and where the new strain emerged and was first transmitted to a human patient. At least until some new epidemiological evidence comes to light, the strain appears to be more a human flu than a swine flu.

Meanwhile, important questions are being asked about circumstantial links between the new virus and industrial pig production…

Update (later on 28th April) – FAO mobilising experts to ascertain whether any link to pigs

The FAO has issued a press release stating that it is mobilising experts to ascertain whether there is any direct connection between the new strain of H1N1 and pigs. There is currently no evidence of the virus circulating in pigs or having been transmitted from pigs to humans. It is not even clear whether the new strain could infect a pig.

The FAO chief veterinary officer explained:

There is no evidence of a threat to the food chain; at this stage it is a human crisis and not an animal crisis, but we have to be alerted and prepared.

The first actions FAO and others must take are to ascertain if the new strain is circulating in pigs, establish if there are any direct linkages between the illness in the human population and animals and explain how this new virus has obtained genetic materials from human, bird and pig influenza strains.

Further update (11th May)

Moves to drop the name “swine flu” have been widely criticised as motivated purely by the interests of pork producers. It’s undeniable that pork producers don’t like the “swine flu” name but this doesn’t, in itself, counter the arguments for an alternative name.

As the origins of the novel H1N1 strain become better understood, it’s increasingly clear that the virus is actually of relatively recent swine origin, the reassortment of swine, avian and human viruses having most likely occurred some time ago in pigs.

Furthermore, there’s some scientific consensus that the nature of pigs and modern pig production played an important role in the development of this novel strain (and others). The link with swine is important. Although the exact source is yet to be identified, it seems reasonable to call the virus “swine-origin”: in full “novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus, human“.

Related posts:

1. Flu story: a history of swine influenza from 1918 to 2009
2. Novel H1N1 swine-origin flu virus, pigs, farms and pork: an evolving round-up
3. Sourcing flu: scientific investigation must follow circumstantial evidence

• “To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish..” President Obama’s inaugural address
  2009/04/16

Anticipating the first G8 agriculture summit

• “A grave problem”: world leaders to address food security – The Tracing Paper anticipates the first G8 agriculture summit
  2009/04/07
• Food crunch: 1st G8 agriculture summit meets in Italy, April 18-20, to “draw up concrete proposals on world food security” # 2009/04/07
• G8 agriculture summit aims to “restore farm produce to economic policy, counter speculation, enhance production chains, invest..” # 2009/04/07
• La Via Campesina, International Peasant Movement: G8 should clean up own mess instead of telling poor countries what to do
  2009/04/17

Examining food security

• Meanings of food security: nationalism, defence, control, resilience, risks, sovereignty, democracy, capacity – Tim Lang
  2009/04/20
• Vince Cable: “fascism has disappeared but there are.. subtle voices.. setting out a protectionist programme in the name of food.. security” – Introduction to The Storm: The World Economic Crisis and What it Means
  2009/04/16
• Vince Cable’s The Storm: The World Economic Crisis and What it Means, Chapter 4: “The Resurrection of Malthus”. Good concise analysis of current food emergency & historical, economic context
  2009/04/22
• Talk of national food security may be mask for protectionism or worse; concern for global food security is humanitarianism
  2009/04/16
• More on (food) security: “Agriculture and Infrastructure: A Global Stimulus to Thwart Terrorism”, speech by Kenneth Quinn, president of the World Food Prize Foundation
  2009/04/16
• The double burden of malnutrition: hunger and obesity coexist in the developed and developing world
  2009/04/20

The summit gets underway

• G8 agriculture summit: why? – “Issue on the agenda: the world food emergency.”
  2009/04/17
• The Independent on the G8 agriculture summit: world agriculture ministers meet today to address “a crisis of almost biblical proportions” http://ow.ly/3auH
  2009/04/18
• G8 agriculture summit working towards final declaration, reports Earth Times. Argument over global cereal stocks, duties, quality standards?
  2009/04/20

Assessing the outcomes

• Guardian report of G8 agriculture summit conclusions suggests feeble outcome. The “Profound failure” predicted by Oxfam?
  2009/04/20
• G8 food summit final declaration short on action, big on words: “agriculture & food security at core of international agenda”
  2009/04/20
• The FT on G8 food & agriculture summit: admits failure to feed poor, asserts importance of food security, but little action
  2009/04/21

Fundamental issues: land, production, food, prices and sustainability

• Shades of Sustainability on Civil Eats: valuable discussion of what sustainable food really means. (Via @FoodNDrink)
  2009/04/20
• “sustainable food supply.. produced & consumed in a way that supports the well-being of generations” Sustainability in the Food Industry (Institute of Food Technologists Series)
  2009/04/20
• Landgrab: how Asian & Middle Eastern countries are buying overseas farmland to secure food supplies. More from agripods.com (registration required)
  2009/04/20
• World food price watch from BBC World Service: prices down over last year in Brussels and Washington, up in Nairobi 2009/04/08
• Land to feed 1 person? Eating only beef 8173 m²; … pork 2592; eggs 2395; milk 2053, fruit 1369; veg 1314; potatoes 275 – reports Tim Lang in lecture, Food Security: are we sleep-walking into a crisis?
  2009/04/20

Related posts:

1. “A grave problem”: world leaders to address food security
2. Waking up to food security

Ever wondered how Easter eggs are made? Cadbury opens the doors of its factory in Bournville, Birmingham, which produces about half the UK’s Easter eggs, 40 million a year. This short BBC film provides a fascinating insight into the process behind the jauntily packaged eggs we devour every Easter.

There’s a surreal fascination in the endless eggs proceeding smoothly along conveyors belts – sometimes marching along in neat rows, later whizzing in single file towards the robot arms that fit the half-shells together with faultless precision. When the egg is complete, it’s wrapped and spun under a roller to smooth its foil. After all this automation, it comes as a surprise to see real people adding the bags of chocolate buttons to each packet.

This mechanical dance presumably continues virtually all year round, even when Easter eggs are far from our thoughts. It’s just one example of the unceasing processes behind all the manufactured food we eat.

(With thanks to the Local Food Research Project, which led to this via its post on the BBC’s film of the workings of the Goodfella frozen pizza factory.)

Related posts:

1. Books, eggs and the illusion of provenance
2. Behind the scenes of the food industry: Our Daily Bread
3. Morsels: choosing fish, saving bees, eating dangerously, ignoring recalls, GM failure, GM ban, newer potatoes, no elixir, Hackney salad, egg factory

If a child shows signs of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), eliminating the colours considered in the Southampton study from their diet might have some beneficial effect on their behaviour.

The FSA states the link and the advice in less than certain terms: “a possible link”, “might have some beneficial effect”. However, the Lancet’s abstract of the research findings is much more definite:

Interpretation
Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population.

Colour additives associated with child hyperactivity

The six artificial colours identified were:

• sunset yellow FCF (E110)
• quinoline yellow (E104)
• carmoisine (E122)
• allura red (E129)
• tartrazine (E102)
• ponceau 4R (E124)

Despite the evidence linking these colours and Sodium Benzoate (E211) – “the Southampton seven additives” – with hyperactivity, the European Food Standards Agency has failed to act decisively to ban them from foods. The UK Food Standards Agency chooses only to list products declared free from the colours.

Products free from colour additives associated with child hyperactivity

The FSA maintains its partial list of products that don’t contain these colours, issuing an updated list today. Unfortunately the list is based on information provided voluntarily by food manufacturers. Only the following companies have confirmed that their specified products don’t contain the colours:

• Asian Asset Group – Worldfoods products
• Blue Keld Springs Ltd – Blue Keld Springs products
• Cookfood – Cookfood products
• Cool Drinks company – Cool Drinks company range of drinks
• Green Bay – Green Bay products
• Heinz – Heinz products, Weight Watchers from Heinz products, HP products, Lea & Perrins products
• Lakeland – Lakeland products
• Montgomeryshire Spring Water company – Montgomeryshire Spring Water products
• Plas Farm Ltd - Plas Farm products
• Rubicon Drinks – Rubicon products, Sun Exotic products
• Sunny Delight Beverage Company – Sunny Delight Beverage Company products
• Vimto Soft Drinks – Vimto products, Panda drinks, Sunkist drinks
• Zipvit – Project ZV products

Which products contain the colour additives associated with child hyperactivity?

Of far greater interest to parents would be a list of products that do contain the offending colours. While the FSA doesn’t compile such a list, Action on Additives (a Food Commission campaign) does, providing a useful searchable database of 520 products containing the colours listed above and Sodium Benzoate (E211), also associated with hyperactivity. Action on Additives also provides additional information on the colour additives and Sodium Benzoate.

Searching the database quickly reveals numerous popular products that contained one or more of these additives on the specified date of purchase. The following are, sadly, just a small selection:

• Cadbury – Mini Eggs (contained E122, E129 – January 2009)
• Mars – M&Ms (contained E104, E129 – September 2008) M&Ms purchased in April 2009 no longer contain any of the listed colours
• Irn Bru (contained E110, E124 – September 2008)
• Jelly Belly – The Original Gourmet Jelly Bean (contained E102, E110, E129 – October 2008)
• Tesco Sugar Free Cherryade (contained E122 – December 2008)
• Maynards Wine Gums (contained E104, E122, E129 – September 2008)

Broken promises or steady improvement?

A recent press release from Action on Additives claims that Mars and Cadbury have broken promises made last year in not removing these colours from all their products. Cadbury has responded to the Food Commission’s accusations, asserting that it has fulfilled its promise to remove all the offending colours from its range of “sweets” (a category that doesn’t include chocolates) and is working on its chocolate products:

The Food Commission has got it wrong. We achieved our goal of removing all artificial colours from our sweets range by the end of last year as we promised. There are a very small number of chocolate products, such as Cadbury Creme Egg, which also contain colours, that presented more difficult technical challenges.

However, we have resolved these and, as of this month, no Creme or Mini Creme Eggs leaving our factories contain artificial colours. We have completed testing on the remaining chocolate brands to ensure consumers enjoy the same quality, and these will also be switched over in the coming months.

Meanwhile, Mars has stated that it has been working to remove the colours since 2006:

By the end of 2008, all of the Southampton seven additives were removed from all of our chocolate products except for Minstrels and Revels which we are working to achieve by the end of 2009 – this information has been publicly available on our consumer care website for several months.

In addition, we had planned to achieve the removal of Southampton Colours from Starburst Choozers by the end of 2008, but have encountered some small technical difficulties which means that this has been delayed by a few weeks. On 6 March, we started to manufacture Starburst Choozers free from these colours and anticipate these will start to appear on shelves in May.

The Tracing Paper has found that M&Ms no longer contain any of the Southampton additives. A packet purchased in April 2009 lists the following colours: E120, E133, E160a, E160e, E171. (Vegetarians should note that E120 is cochineal, a red colouring derived from crushed insect carcases.)

More products with bad colours

Unfortunately, even Action on Additives’ extensive list isn’t complete. The supermarket comparison site, mySupermarket.co.uk, provides helpful lists of ingredients for many products supplied by Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury’s and Ocado (ie Waitrose). Searching the site for the additive numbers results in terrifyingly long lists of products containing these colours. For example, searching for E110 gives about 145 results.

We deserve more transparent information

It’s not easy to remember the list of additives to avoid, let alone to check every product we buy. Action on Additives will provide a handy card to carry as a reference of the additives, but better still would be for the European and UK Food Standards Agencies to take real action. If not a complete ban on these additives (and why not?) then at least a compulsory warning on the label – “This product contains additive(s) linked with hyperactivity in children”.

Related posts:

1. Bad colours: in medicines as well as foods
2. No added colours (don’t mention the flavourings, sugar, calcium carbonate, salt, glucose-fructose syrup…)

How many aphids to expect in your broccoli

US consumers are told to expect to find up to 60 aphids / thrips / mites in every 100g of frozen broccoli (but only up to 30 in frozen Brussels sprouts), up to 60 insect fragments in a 100g chocolate bar, up to 4 rodent hairs in 25g of curry powder, and a “copepod accompanied by pus pockets” in 3% of their red fish fillets. These are the specified action levels, below which there is “no inherent hazard to health”.

The FDA’s handbook The Food Defect Action Levels sets out the “levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods that present no health hazards for humans”. It’s a stark reminder that we can’t expect any of our food to be absolutely pure and unadulterated. All food is fundamentally a natural product, however much processing it goes through before it reaches our plates. Indeed, processing may only disguise the adulteration: a maggot in a fresh apple is easy to spot, any maggots in a glass of apple juice or spoon of apple purée less so.

Sharing the natural world

We may think of the “natural” as representing all that is wholesome and good, but we share the natural world with every other mammal, as well as insects, fungi and bacteria. Harvesting food is a process of isolating the parts of the natural world that we like to eat, but the separation can never be absolute.

And our food remains an interesting source of nutrition to other denizens of the natural world. Keeping it good is a constant battle, as we seek to deter our competitors with chemicals (from pesticides and detergents to salt and sugar), heat, packaging and more. When food goes bad, it hasn’t suddenly flipped from one clear state to another; bad food has simply reached a level of contamination that we no longer find acceptable.

Contamination in the UK

The UK’s Food Standards Agency doesn’t appear to publish any detailed information on the acceptable degree of contamination of our food. There is, however, a realistic recognition in food law that contamination is only problematic beyond a certain level. The 1990 Food Safety Act states “food fails to comply with food safety requirements if [...] it is so contaminated (whether by extraneous matter or otherwise) that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption in that state”. Presumably it would be a matter for legal argument where the limits of reasonable expectation lie.

Related posts:

1. Contamination of Irish pork exposes our fragile food system