The Great British Food Fight The True Cost of Cheap Food

Comments

1. I watched this programme hoping to learn something new, but was sorely disappointed. I already knew that you get what you pay for. there may have been something in the last 15 minutes that i missed because I stopped watching at that point, angry at myself for wasting as much time as i already had. I had enough of listening to our host asking people if they thought that supermarkets should produce better food and not pass on the extra cost to the shopper. I got the impression that the programme was more about promoting the host and bashing the supermarkets. What is the point of presenting individual supermarkets profits without telling us what the turnover was. It is hard to make a judgement on whether the profits are excessive or not. To conclude, I was disappointed that what I thought would be educational turned out to be quiet the opposite

   Posted by Colm Costello on 08/03/2009 12:35:50

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. Can anyone tell me where is the Leeds Nursery mentioned in the program where the one couple was said to be buying their vegetables from. It mentioned their "LOCAL' Nursery??? where is that in Leeds?

   Posted by Joseph Bernon on 17/02/2009 23:34:19

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. Jay I was very interested in todays programme about cheap foods etc. I would like to share this with you. I have been buying sainsburys basic instant custard powder for quite some time. It has been 7p per packet for, lets say 6 months. A few weeks ago it went up at 8p, not a problem you might think. Than last week it went up to 12p, a 50% market according to my calculations. I made contact with head office, stating what had found and had an e-mail back giving me a long winded explanation about costs etc. Strange to say when we shopped today, guess what? the same custard powder had gone back to 8p. We have done a survey of our own, paricularly with custard powders from all of the four main supermarkets, and found the cheap/basic ones acceptable as the standard ones. I am just wondering what you make of it, could it be that if I had not complained, the price would have stayed the same or even gone up again. Just a thought! Enjoyed the programme and thanks for enlightening me a little more. G Goodwin

   Posted by George Goodwin on 15/02/2009 23:44:40

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. After watching the Dispatches programme with Jay Rayner I was quite amazed to see that the woman doing her shopping at a different supermarket each week had Morrisons products in her Sainsbury's bag. I work for one of the "big 4" and do agree stromgly that products could contain a better quality of ingredient for the same or a slightly higher cost to the customer, as the staff tend to get rather pittyful wages. This being not much more than minimum wage. I really think that they could / can afford to put more into both ingredients and staff. But I am sure that wages and perhaps working conditions are for another programme.

   Posted by Chris Reid on 27/01/2009 16:38:12

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. Was this some sort of catch-up session for those that have managed to avoid popular culture for the last 5 years. None of this was news, the repetitive rattling off of figures merely a good chance to pour another glass of wine and the comparison of ill-selected nutritional elements was relatively useless. As Rayner admitted, few of us suffer from protein deficiency - perhaps an attempt to differentiate the program from the usual messages about fat and salt. And the revelation that the majority of people surveyed felt that the supermarkets should sell the more meaty version of the sausage at the same price as the more starchy number is far from surprising. Unfortunately the intent was good but the result was boring. The program was admirably open about the shortcomings of, and contradictions to its 'research' and somewhat confident in its presentation of selected findings and opinions that questioned the overall intended message.. most endearingly through the young lads that, despite the connective tissue and water content, thought that the basic food were either lovely or nice. Inspiringly much less fussy than me and particularly my older brother 25 years ago.

   Posted by MC, Leeds on 27/01/2009 02:05:16

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. very informative programme but missed a vital point.what difference would it make to a child's health if they were fed with low cost food versus high cost food over the formative year's .surely the view of a professional would have been helpful to the viewer's

   Posted by zud on 27/01/2009 00:20:16

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. I think the programme gave an insight into how the supermarkets sell their food so cheaply. However i think its slightly unfair to blame them for modern eating habits. I think that supermarkets fuel the current trend for fast cheap food but we need to realise that home cooking is a dying skill. people don't seem to have time to cook a meal at home or at least think they don't have time. we need to be educating children in the importance of food and showing them how to manage thier diets responsibly. in turn they can educate their children and bring back good home cooking. If i want my meat pie to have more than 18% meat content then i will make it myself using cheaper cuts of meat. How do i know what type of meat to use and how to cook it i hear you cry, well i go to my local butcher who is an expert on meat and ask his advice, the same as i would go to a mechanic if my car was broken.there is workshops and college classes in your local area helping you to cook more at home. I myself am a chef of 21 years and have given up a well paid job in the city to start up a community project running a restaurant that trains its staff from the local area and will hold workshops in vegetable growing and cooking your own produce. even people with only window boxes can grow there own produce. I think its time to stop pointing fingers and get off our bums and do something about it. thank you

   Posted by Graeme edwardson on 26/01/2009 21:51:14

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. Dear Mr Rayner Thank you opening my eyes regards to how our food is mucked about with I have often thought how doctors can say bacon is to fatty when fried how can this be with the amount of water injected into food I will now look more towards seafood or food that cannot be doctored to gain weight and I will never eat another pie from the supermarket chains I would rather cook my own, Please bring back the old way of producing decent food and do away with plastic packageing that makes food sweat. Another thing that I have noticed is English bread will turn mouldy while bread in France and Russia to name but a few countries will go hard but still edible I have to live on a tight budget and things like Rabbit and pigeon which my father used to be able to shoot for the table is now priced above my pension but I will still not eat instant package foods or meals. Thanking you D Hurrell

   Posted by Davey Hurrell on 24/01/2009 14:46:30

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. I was just wondering if you gave your family multi-vitamin supplements would you still be ok to feed them the value food?

   Posted by Lisa Matthews on 23/01/2009 19:13:49

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
10. I enjoyed the programme especially the highlighted superiority of local shopping, in terms of quality, shelf life and price, though price only against normal Supermarket produce. Supermarkets will take no notice of this fine effort. They are determined to maintain their position. Change can only be done when consumers wise-up to the questionable practices employed. A linked interest is waste (plastic packaging waste mainly), which supermarkets and suppliers refuse to take full responsibility for. Zero Waste is the consumer's answer to this.

    Posted by John on 23/01/2009 14:17:53

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
11. The programme's central theme - our biggest companies exploiting customers with dubious practices - was not a new one. And as in other areas of our life, it is surely the lack of protective regulation which is at fault. How did we get to the point where meat pies with only 18% meat content are allowed on our shelves, or chicken breasts are artificially inflated with water and other additives, sometimes by 20%? If this type of thing is not within the remit of FSA, then why not? As is the perceived wisdom, we are well on our way to reaching the situation which prevails in the USA. Obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases all on the rise. We cannot stop the industrialisation of food, but surely we can regulate it to safeguard our own health. I have several other comments:- 1. How is it that on the one hand the programme is saying that the supermarket own lines are both rock bottom price and produce, but are still more expensive than locally bought ingredients? 2. Instead of having 2 seperate families working in isolation with the same budgets with own label products and locally bought produce, it may have been a better demonstration to have the same family use both approaches one after another to bring the differences into sharper focus.

    Posted by horse07 on 23/01/2009 10:57:46

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
12. what a boring, predictable and unneccessary programme. relevations included; cheap food is cheaper than more expensive food which is better. some people prefer better food although a significant proportion cheaper food. people think that food should be cheaper. supermarkets make money where is mr rayners social responsibility to make programmes that actually have a purpose or make a difference to human and animal welfare (like school dinners or ministry of food of free range chicken). maybe mr rayner could send a few months reviewing restaurants including chains which offer value and are accessible to a large proportion of the population rather than his preferred exclusive london haunts. or flying round the globe eating to produce a niche within a niche book; where is the socioal reposnisbility in that. pompous nonsense

    Posted by olivia bowen on 23/01/2009 09:57:26

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
13. I watched most of this last night, found it really interest and more than abit disturbed by chicken with 40% water content. Missed the end though where the familes found out whether supermarket no frills was cheaper than shopping independently. Could anyone let me know which was cheaper?

    Posted by Kelbell on 23/01/2009 09:24:30

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
14. I watched this program and to be honest I found it only scratched the surface, and the statistics it revealed were misleading. The way they portrayed the levels of protein ect in the tested food stuffs made it look bad, even though a few quick calculations in my head showed there were only small percentage in differences between the expensive and cheap foods. They were also selective in what produce they tested too. (an example is the burgers they tested, there was only 1 - 2% difference in the protein content, yet they were half the price, that to me is a neglegable amount of quality versus price). It would have been interesting to see the difference between Bread/Milk ect. rather than the mass produced quick food stuffs that were shown on the program. We all know these types of food stuffs are no good for us health wise, yet that was not highlighed in the show. There was only one health produce shown and that was tomatoes, and again there was no massive difference in the antioxidant they were tested for. Very misleading program in my opnion.

    Posted by Brett on 23/01/2009 06:50:53

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
15. Great programme and a great message. BBC Mischief did something similar a few months back, although in a much less sophisticated - but very funny manner. I think it's important that people do "get wise" to the tricks that the supermarkets use to bulk up their products. The more people who are aware, the more likely it is we will see them react. More good work from the Channel4 food team!

    Posted by Andy on 22/01/2009 23:46:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
16. Its a risk for supermarkets to increase the price of all but the premium level products as on the shelves of their competitors on the price label it will say something like "Sainsburys price 99p, Our price 98p - Every little helps". But it would be an interesting experiment for a supermarket marketing department to see what happens when instead of flagging the competitors price, the attention-grabbing shelf ticket said something like "Lidl sausages 40% pork, our sausages 50% pork".

    Posted by Thomas on 22/01/2009 23:21:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
17. I am currently watching this show and have been surprised at the twisting and sensationalisation of some of the figures involved. Yes, it may cost 0.7 pence extra to create a 'fine(ish)' sausage with more meat, but this is just under a 13% increase on the original production costs of 4.75p, assuming that the margin for this 5p product is 5% as previously stated by the show. No company is ever going to increase their production costs by almost 13% without passing the increase on costs to their customers. Also to ask members of the public if they would like something that they have been told is better that the original but for the same money, and then be smug about the fact that they all said 'Yes', is another example of how this has been well edited and cleverly scripted to emphasise the 'social responsibility' that supermarkets seem to be expected to take. Consumers have a choice, as demonstrated by the show. They have also played a major part in finding the natural level of price versus quality for these 'value' products. This is shown by the fact that the price versus quality was reasonably uniform across all of the major stores. Also, products are clearly labelled, and the media should assume that the general public is more intelligent and able to make their own informed decisions on the products they buy. The one issue that was highlighted by the show that was extremely positive, was how they demonstrated the cheap cost of better quality products from local suppliers. Also, Heston's demonstration of how to identify lower quality chicken that has been injected with water etc to make it look better was very good.

    Posted by JonBrydges on 22/01/2009 21:53:08

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
18. I thought this was an excellent show and hope that the message is heard from boardrooms to kitchens all round the country. I hope that the supermarkets do listen and realise that they have a major major effect on the way that the country feeds themselves and there health. If supermarkets make multimillion pounds worth of profits every year im sure that they can make a small donation back to the people that give them that money.

    Posted by BertBib on 22/01/2009 21:21:01

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
19. This show was dreadful. The makers clearly entirely misunderstood the point of value foods: they are slightly cheaper, slightly worse versions of foods, and nobody has ever tried to pretend that they are anything else. Consumers can easily find out the information on supermarket foods and this program provided very little additional factual evidence. Dispatches started off with a dull conclusion: supermarkets are bad. Then they found some irrelevant facts to back up their conslusion. This was not an investigation.

    Posted by JG on 22/01/2009 20:55:27

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
20. When i first heard of the idea of this programme I was utterly disgusted,but surprisingly not beacause dispatches are displaying the faults in supermarket food,but simply beacause of the shows complete lack of consideration. We are all in the middle of a recession and are all having to cut our costs in many ways, one of them being the food we buy. Is it the consumers fault that we are having to purchase supermarket brand foods to get by?..i certainly dont think so.By airing the show the people that are hit hardest by the recession are made to feel guilty for not affording better and higher quality food through absolutely no fault of their own. I am all for pushing supermarkets and other food companies to better their produce for ethical or health issues, but in my opinion now is not the right time to be displaying a show like this. Instead maybe the show should look at making better quality non supermarket brands at a lower price, then maybe the programme wouldnt be so harsh to a credit crunch hit audience.

    Posted by Jade on 22/01/2009 19:34:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
21. i think this is a fantastic idea to show these companies how they should be doing it I have to say Heston has my vote so far.... how can they not keep little Chef Brittish???

    Posted by laura on 21/01/2009 08:57:02

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment