Cooking for Bureaucrats: Why the Policy of Food Reformulation is Hard to Stomach

J. Appleton
{"title":"Cooking for Bureaucrats: Why the Policy of Food Reformulation is Hard to Stomach","authors":"J. Appleton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3852609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under the UK government’s policy of \"reformulation\", food products are subject to government targets for the reduction of salt, sugar, and calories. This empowers Public Health England to monitor and regulate the composition of virtually every part of the prepared food supply, including both ready-meals and supermarket biscuits and the recipes of cafés and restaurants. It represents the largest extension of state control over the British diet since rationing. The reformulation scheme is highly bureaucratic. Since 2017, there have been 220 different active salt and sugar targets. Proposals for new calorie reduction targets include a baffling range of food products, which most people would not consider unhealthy. Many of the targets are surreal, with the guideline for sugar content in nut butters being less than that naturally occurring in cashew nuts. Reformulation has been driven less by nutritional science than by the concerns of an out-of-touch state bureaucracy. <br><br>Food reformulation is an irrational bureaucratic standard, which will detach the food market from the tastes, preferences, and nutritional goals of consumers. Food products will end up being designed, not primarily to please the public, but to meet the arbitrary targets set by health bureaucrats.","PeriodicalId":170831,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice: Analysis of Collective Decision-Making eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3852609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under the UK government’s policy of "reformulation", food products are subject to government targets for the reduction of salt, sugar, and calories. This empowers Public Health England to monitor and regulate the composition of virtually every part of the prepared food supply, including both ready-meals and supermarket biscuits and the recipes of cafés and restaurants. It represents the largest extension of state control over the British diet since rationing. The reformulation scheme is highly bureaucratic. Since 2017, there have been 220 different active salt and sugar targets. Proposals for new calorie reduction targets include a baffling range of food products, which most people would not consider unhealthy. Many of the targets are surreal, with the guideline for sugar content in nut butters being less than that naturally occurring in cashew nuts. Reformulation has been driven less by nutritional science than by the concerns of an out-of-touch state bureaucracy.

Food reformulation is an irrational bureaucratic standard, which will detach the food market from the tastes, preferences, and nutritional goals of consumers. Food products will end up being designed, not primarily to please the public, but to meet the arbitrary targets set by health bureaucrats.
为官僚做饭:为什么食品配方改革政策令人难以接受
在英国政府的“重新配方”政策下,食品必须遵守政府制定的减少盐、糖和卡路里的目标。这使英格兰公共卫生部能够监测和管理几乎所有预制食品供应的组成,包括即食食品和超市饼干以及咖啡馆和餐馆的食谱。这是自定量配给以来,国家对英国饮食控制的最大延伸。这个重新制定的计划是高度官僚主义的。自2017年以来,已有220种不同的活性盐和糖目标。关于新的卡路里减少目标的建议包括一系列令人困惑的食品,大多数人不会认为这些食品不健康。许多目标都是不切实际的,坚果酱的含糖量指南要低于腰果的天然含糖量。与其说是营养科学在推动食品配方的改革,不如说是对脱离实际的国家官僚机构的担忧。食品重新配方是一种非理性的官僚标准,它将使食品市场脱离消费者的口味、偏好和营养目标。食品的设计最终将不再主要是为了取悦公众,而是为了满足卫生官员武断设定的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信