Understanding of Food State Nutrition

What exactly is “Food State”? A natural food, for example a vegetable growing out of the ground, will provide its nutrients to the body in a form that the body can easily recognise, assimilate and absorb. We can consider these nutrients to be in a “food state” form, and instinctively we will understand the benefit of this natural food. The vitamins and minerals within this food will be bound together within a food matrix with a variety of “co-factors” that effectively provide a delivery system for those nutrients to be delivered to receptor sites within the body. Evolution has created this relationship between us and the natural food we eat, yet if you strip away those co-factors you will end up with a nutrient in an isolated form that will never be found in nature. Yet this is the form in which virtually all nutritional supplements exist. We call this form “Free State”.

Is there a strong argument for taking supplements? If you consider the desperately depleted nutritional value of our farm soils, and if you accept the rationale that a lot of disease processes stem from a nutritional deficiency, then the answer would be a resounding “yes”. However, what most people don’t appreciate is that nearly all supplements are in a chemical, isolated form, without this delivery system inherent in live food. This is why supplements in a food state form are the preferred form for human consumption. This “Food State” form makes them more recognisable to the body (increasing their absorption and availability) and conveys a degree of protection to that vitamin or mineral, while appearing to prevent chemical interactions from occurring. For example, in the “Free State”, vitamin E and iron put into close proximity negate each other, making them unacceptable for use by the body. This does not happen when these two materials come into close contact in a “Food State”, as the active principle is satisfied in this state and is not free for chemical interchange. Complexed with Food Components The “Food State” vitamins, minerals and trace elements are complexed with food components of which yeast is one. Others are carrot concentrate for beta carotene; citrus pulp for vitamin C; vegetable oil for vitamin E etc. The final product is a food matrix containing co-factors such as: proteins, glycoproteins, lipoproteins, phosphoproteins etc. These co-factors are essential for proper delivery and they simply don’t exist in the more common isolated chemical alternatives. “Food state” materials do not need to be taken with food as all the food components are integral, thus eliminating the need for a random chance meeting of the active substance with its specific food co-factors. Minerals in the “Food State” Minerals are available in two forms: inorganic (“Free State”) and organic (“Food State”). Inorganic minerals are generally accepted to be inappropriate for human tissue, whereas in organic form, minerals are readily recognised and used by the body. Nature’s process is to convert inorganic minerals into an organic mineral form as plants grow in the soil. The plant is then eaten by humans (or animals that humans eat) and the organic mineral thus becomes available for human absorption. With this in mind, “Food State” minerals are produced by feeding living plant cells with that particular mineral, resulting in a super concentrated “Food State” mineral plant. This is then harvested, freeze dried and tableted. Food State supplements are recognised as one of the best sources of nutrients, which can be easily digested and readily absorbed by the body. They are more than just components extracted from a Natural Source. “Food State” presents a whole food as in nature, giving us not just a memory of nature but the actual experience of nature in a form that the human metabolic system is designed to recognise.

“FOOD STATE” DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS The Food State concept is a breakthrough in nutrition. The main reasons are:

1) The vitamins, minerals and trace elements we normally consume come to us as part of the food we eat. This is the best way for us to obtain our vitamins, minerals and trace element requirements.

2) In food, the vitamins, minerals and trace elements are naturally complexed to many different and complex food components.

3) With common supplement tablets, vitamins, minerals and trace elements are in an isolated chemical form, and are not found attached to the many different and complex food components.

4) Foodstate vitamins, minerals and trace elements are naturally complexed to food components, which is similar to the form the body can recognise.

5) Food technology and manufacturing processes alter or even destroy the natural and delicate balance of essential nutrients. Furthermore, modern farm soils are desperately inadequate in their nutritional value. These facts highlight the growing importance of dietary supplementation. Foodstate vitamin, mineral and trace element supplements offer a safer, more bioavailable and effective form.

6) The increased effectiveness of “Food State” products results in: a) More effective distribution within the body b) A general “non-targeting” effect, allowing the body to use nutrients where required in a similar way to food c) Less risk of gastric/gut irritation d) Nutrients are already accompanied by associated food factors that the body needs for their proper utilisation; i.e. there is no need for “Food State” supplements to be taken with food like other supplements.

7) Foodstate vitamin and mineral supplements are used and recommended by leading medical practitioners, as they believe the products outperform other products.

8) The on-going research programme is probably unrivalled for a Food Supplement supplier. A large number of independent studies into the “Food State” range, many peer-reviewed by renowned journals, cover the following topics: Bioavailability, Absorption, Retention, Utilisation, Toxicity, Comparative

9) FoodState products provide prolonged active presence in the body (better than delayed action products).

10) When their superior effectiveness is taken into consideration, Foodstate products are no more expensive per effective dose than other products. What about Yeast Allergies and “Food State”? Most allergens are complex protein-based molecules. Therefore for something to stimulate this allergy to yeast, it must contain complex long chain molecules, as true allergies are molecule specific. With “Food State” minerals, once the yeast has taken up the mineral, the outer cell wall is removed, the yeast cell is ruptured, and the long chain proteins are broken down to peptides by Proteolytic enzymes. Hence none of the potentially allergenic long chain molecules exist. These Food State nutrient products are safe to use even by yeast sensitive people; this has been proven by their use in allergy clinics where patients are whole yeast sensitive.

It must be said, however, that no product, is totally non-allergenic. In almost every biochemistry book, we find reference to “Carrier Proteins”. These carrier proteins are usually mentioned in relation to their role in transporting atoms of minerals, or molecules of naturally occurring coenzyme form vitamins, through blood plasma, cell membranes, cytoplasma, etc. The term “carrier protein” is used in connection with the metabolic system of animals, but we believe it could be applied to the vegetable kingdom as well. The working substances in an organism are the proteins which we call enzymes. In most cases, enzymes need minerals (called cofactors) and/or vitamins (called coenzymes). These nutrients must be attached to the enzymes or be a part of them. These substances are responsible for helping nutrient transportation, retention, storage and function, and have an influence on biological activity in general. They are present in all foods, and in all known living systems. In our opinion, they also help the absorption of nutrients from foods.

The protein-associated substances that are involved in the absorption of vitamins and minerals are called Carrier Food Factors (CFFs). Carrier Food Factor refers only to those constituents in food which help the absorption of vitamins and minerals while they are in the stomach, in the gut, and while passing through the intestinal wall into the blood stream. CFFs do not refer to the protein-associated substances which carry nutrients in the blood stream. The composition and structure of CFFs are unknown to us today. Very likely, there are numerous types present in our foods. The CFFs in foods of both animal and vegetable origin are in the cells of those foods, or in the interstitial fluid of those foods, and upon consumption they get into the GI system and begin to do whatever they have to do. To help understand why there must be numerous different CFFs and how each may determine the destination of a nutrient, a good mental picture is to imagine each one as an envelope with a different address, going to a different destination. The sender is the brain, the mail-order house is the liver, the postman is the plasma, the organ to be delivered to is the country, the area of the tissue is the county, the home address is the cell etc. Each destination in the living system must have its own address. The address, in our hypothesis, is somehow written in the amino acid / lipid / carbohydrate composition and in the three-dimensional folding of the CFF. The address the CFF is destined to reach is displayed on the surface of the cell in the form of the receptors, or in the cell membrane in the cytoplasma, in the nucleus, and also in the various organelles of the cell. It is doubtful whether the biological system reworks coenzyme form vitamin into USP (Unites States Phamacopeia) vitamins. If it did, then the individual USP vitamins and inorganic minerals would show the same absorption, retention, storage and biological activity as re-natured “Food State” vitamins and minerals. However, they do not. If the yeast mineral were released from the CFF, they would have the same toxicity, the same rate of absorption, and the same blood levels at any comparable time as the free-state minerals. They would appear at the same level in the organs at any given time. They would be excreted in the urine at the same concentration and in the same composition. However, they are not. Extensive testing of Food State nutrients has been carried out comparing them to standard “Free State” USP counterparts. The results, in our opinion, strongly suggest the presence of a CFF nutrient complex in the form that emulates food.

 

Can Food Be Modified

Despite the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods they are beneficial both to humans and the environment. Genetically modified plants can repel harmful insects while at the same time producing more fruit. They are better for the environment, are healthier, and are cheaper than organic foods. Nowadays, organic foods simply aren’t efficient enough so they cost more and are more difficult to produce than GM foods. While this creates a new market for people that are against genetically modified foods, for the average person it is impractical. GM foods are the foods of the future and they are here to stay.

GM foods are classified as any species of plant or animal that has had its DNA altered. The alteration usually produces desirable traits found either rarely or not at all in the original species. The DNA can either be modified by either allowing a dormant gene to be expressed or by “splicing” which is a process that allows a DNA segment with desirable traits to be cut from its strand and inserted into the DNA strand of the organism to be genetically modified. Through this process many benefits can be gained.

One benefit is that GM crops take far less time to grow and become fertile. Another is that they can also be adjusted to better withstand the never-ending onslaught of pests such as bugs, as well undesirable weather. This means an increase in production which means that people can get what they want when they want it, a very good thing in today’s fast paced world where many people are accustomed to instant gratification. Also, GM foods are arguably better tasting than some of their natural counterparts and also have a much higher chance of being an overall better product. Despite all these things there are still people with arguments against GM foods. However, it cannot be denied that genetically modified foods are a worldwide trend and carry with them many benefits.

Some arguments against GM foods are the potential for allergic reactions, the effect that GM foods can have on their environment, and lastly the ethics surrounding the science. Of these surely all the scientific arguments can surely be solved. One of the arguments in question is the fact that GM foods carry some risk of causing allergic reaction. The reason for this is that there is a very slim chance that the DNA segment that is cut during the splicing process contains code that produces proteins that people can be allergic to. So basically if someone who was allergic to peanuts ate a piece of bread that was made from GM wheat that that shared DNA with a peanut that person might have an allergic reaction (if he was extremely unlucky).

This problem can be solved by manufacturers listing possible allergens in their products on the can or box the product comes in. If the product in question happens to be some sort of produce or other product that does not come in a box, can, or other container that can be labeled other arrangements can surely be made. A second argument regarding GM foods is their impact on the environment. Genetically modified foods do have an impact on the environment but it is not decidedly negative. While genetically modified foods may negatively affect some parts of the ecosystem this is not known for sure. One thing that is for sure is that many forms of GM crops are poisonous to certain pests that would otherwise wreak their havoc not only in other crops but in nature too.

One of the last and most tricky arguments against GM foods is the question of morals. Is God really okay with us tampering with his creations? Well regardless of the answer to this question we have been doing exactly this for thousands of years. Originally corn when mature grew to be only about 3-4 inches in length. We have been using selective breeding to obtain desirable traits in both crops and livestock since ancient times by modifying DNA directly we are just speeding up this process. In the beginning, God said that all the plants and creatures of the earth were ours, and now we are just finally beginning to scratch the surface of what that truly means.

Though many people have expressed their dislike of GM foods it cannot be denied that all around the world these foods are making a difference. Farmers no longer need to use pesticides on their crops because they have been genetically altered to be resistant to a number of pests. Farmers also no longer need to worry about the effects of cold or freezing weather on some of their crops. Frost can destroy seedlings which can in turn ruin entire harvests. However, with the insertion of an antifreeze gene found in many species of cold water fish these plants are able to tolerate these harsh conditions.

Furthermore, since plants can also be modified to be both hardier and more fertile more crops can be produced using a significantly lower number of seeds. Another helpful modification found commonly in GM crops allows them to be resistant to Glyphosate more popularly known by its commercial name: Roundup. Glyphosate is an herbicide that kills all plant life with the exception of the GM foods that have been tailored to resist it. This resistance means that farmers only have to use one herbicide to wipe out any and all undesired plant life instead of using many that target only certain threats. But, genetically modified foods are not only helping farmers and the average person they are helping people out all around the world.

One of the most notable accomplishments of genetically modified foods has been the creation of “Golden Rice”. This rice is a variation of Oryza sativa rice and has helped to address the issue of malnutrition in third world countries by boosting levels of both Vitamin A and iron. In Oryza sativa rice the edible part of the rice contains no Vitamin A or iron. However, Golden Rice addresses this problem by biosynthesizing iron and beta-Carotene, a red-orange pigment commonly found in plants and fruit. It is a form of Vitamin A and is what gives carrots and sweet potatoes their orange hue. The impact of this rice on third world countries has been astounding and has prevented the deaths of thousands or possibly even millions of children who could have died from malnourishment. With genetically modified foods the possibilities are seemingly endless and the potential to do good is astounding as the dream of a world without hunger or disease suddenly becomes more and more a reality.

Modifying rice to produce Vitamin A and iron is just the beginning. In the near future it will be possible to administer vaccines and other medications through GM foods as well as essential nutrients. These edible vaccinations hold the potential to wipe out malaria and other deadly diseases so commonly found throughout our world. Future GM foods could also make possible the elimination of naturally occurring allergens and non-nutritional compounds. This would mean that all foods would be healthier and that none of them would cause allergic reactions. Some future applications of genetically modified crops go beyond the kitchen with

GM crops making the production of biodegradable plastics, diesel fuel, and more durable cotton and linen products a possibility. Also in the near future game fish may be genetically modified to grow faster thus helping repopulate the sea with different species of overfished fish. All these benefits and more are not so far out of our reach. GM foods have the potential to change the world for the better, to make it a healthier place to live. And once we reach this future who knows where we will be able to go from there.

Genetically modified foods are an asset to the people of the world. GM crops dramatically increase production. They also ensure that no blight, whether it be drought or frost, should be detrimental to a harvest. This technology has already begun to save lives by fighting malnutrition and has the great potential in the medical field. Soon we will be able to send vaccinations and other medicines via seeds that will grow to produce fruit with the medication in them. These foods have the potential to make us healthier and thus lengthen our lives. And while controversy will for a long time surround genetically modified foods, we have been using them since 1994. The precursor to genetic modification, selective breeding, began thousands of years before this date and is the reason for many of the common species of plants and animals today.

Genetic modification is merely another scientific advance such as many others that will, as they did, change the world. Genetically modified foods are just one aspect of this advance but they are a big part of it because of the huge impact that have on both everyday life and the lives of others. GM foods are the foods of both today and of the future. Despite some opposition to this fact it cannot be denied that these foods have benefits both in the long and short term. In short, GM foods are extremely beneficial and are here to stay.

Genetically modified foods are a good thing. They have many benefits and GM crops themselves can have other applications besides food. The potential of genetic modification is just barley being tapped. So many things are possible now that the building blocks of life are able to be shifted, changed, and replaced. What is being done now will be remembered as the start of a global phenomenon that will have forever changed the world for the better. Genetically modified foods will make a future without hunger, disease, and malnourishment a real possibility. The technology itself will go even further than this because genetically modifying plants and animals for food is only one small part of the overall picture.

The use and production of medicine, fuel, plastics, metals, and countless other things will be forever changed by this technology. The benefits of GM foods are seemingly endless. They will continue grow in popularity and in the near will be even more common than they are now. These foods will be continually improved so that from the time they are planted to the time they are eaten they are as wholesome as they can be. These are some of the reasons why genetically modified foods are so beneficial and they will go on to change the world for the better.

 

Tips To Make Your Food Safe

Of all the environmental and heath issues, food safety commands the most urgent attention from authorities when regulations are found to have been broken. Recently in China, there have been several food safety scandals resulting in huge financial losses and reputation damage to the country and its food exporting sector. The climax occurred in July 2007 when it was announced that the former head of the State Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, accepted bribes in exchange for issuing state food product safety licenses. He was subsequently executed in accordance with China’s tough official stance on corruption. Prior to this, there had been a number of scandals involving the food sector. Jinhua Ham was found to have been treated with a poisonous pesticide before sale (2003); the production of counterfeit baby food formula which led to the death of around 80 babies hundreds of cases of severe malnutrition in 2004; and most recently in 2008, contaminated baby formula produced by the Sanlu Group led to an occurrence of kidney disease with numerous casualties.

The fact that the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration (set up in 2003 to take control of food safety issues) was itself the target of investigation for corruption has led to a resurgence in the uptake of third-party audited standards for food safety in the country. Foreign importers from China do not trust Chinese national standards and are demanding exporters adhere to international standards such as ISO 22000 inspected by global certification bodies. Similar incidents have occurred in Japan, most notably with the Snow Brand dairy company, which was found to have falsified food safety records in the wake of a tainted milk products scandal in 2002.

Most nations have a government authority to manage those issues from production to sale to consumers. They advise on national legislation and deliver food safety requirements for home-produced and imported goods. These include the Food Standards Authority in the UK, the US Food and Drug Administration, as well as the State Food and Drug Administration of China. At the EU level, the Eropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) conducts risk assessments on food safety in cooperation with national governments and provides independent advice and communication on current and emerging risks.

The HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) guidelines published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization are a fundamental part of the important food safety standard being developed by the International Standards Organization (ISO), ISO 22000. There are seven HACCP principles that must be followed. These dictate that food producers must conduct a pre-production hazard analysis to identify and address biological, chemical or physical issues that make food unsafe for human consumption; establish good safety monitoring systems; and implement comprehensive documentation procedures. The application of HACCP principles and procedures are mandatory in the US for food products including meat, juice and seafood, and they are generally applied elsewhere as the basis for third-party food safety certification.

As shown by the China examples, Food Safety certification is absolutely critical for food retail and international trade. Without it producers and suppliers cannot sell their goods. There is significant business and reputation risk attached to how certification is obtained and it is advisable to get certified to well-recognized standards awarded by reputable third-party certification bodies.

Launched in 2005, the ISO 22000 is already one of the best recognized international food safety standards. It provides for food safety management systems for any organization, regardless of size, involved in any aspect of the food chain. To meet the standard an organization must demonstrate its ability to effectively control food safety hazards in order to ensure that food is safe at the time of human consumption. It incorporates the HACCP principles outlined above.

Prior to the ISO standard, the BRC (British Rail Consortium) Global Standard for Food Safetywas established and is trusted by leading global retailers to deliver effective supply chain management and legal compliance. The Global Standard is part of a group of product safety standards, together enabling certification of the entire food supply chain, and was the first standard in the world to be approved by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GSFI).

Formerly called EurepGAP, GLOBALGAP sets voluntary ‘pre-farm-gate’ standards for the certification of agricultural products and Good Agricultural Practices. Standards are awarded by approved third party certification bodies in over 75 countries. GLOBALGAP is a business-to-business label and is therefore not directly relevant to consumers.

Other leading standards, more on the ethical side of food production, are the US based Food Alliance Certification and SQF Certification. Food Alliance Certification is given to North American sustainable food products that cover issues such as the humane treatment of animals and the exclusion of hormones, non-therapeutic antibiotics, GM crops or livestock and certain pesticides as well as soil and water protection at farm/ranch level.

SQF (Safe Quality Food) Certification is awarded by licensed certifiers globally and provides independent certification that a supplier’s food safety and quality management system complies with international and domestic food safety regulations. SQF certifications have been awarded to thousands of companies operating in Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and North and South America.

 

The Meaning Food Shortage

The UN claims that Food production must double by 2050 to meet the demand of the worlds growing population. However, most of the worlds productive farmland is already in use, so increased food production will require extending intensive farming methods with greater use of pesticides and fertilizers leading to the increased release of greenhouse gases. Paradoxically, UK government policy is attempting to deal with both of these problems simultaneously with plans to “boost food production in Britain and reduce its impact on the environment”. Is this realistic, or is there an easier way?

Calculations based on waste and calorie intake suggest that the UK has access to at least double the food necessary for adequate nutrition. Since farming, retail and eating habits are probably similar throughout the developed world, this implies there is no real food crisis in terms of the amount produced, only in how it is consumed. Therefore, a better strategy must be to focus on reducing food waste rather than growing more. This would minimise the impact on the environment, reduce food expenditure, and achieve better food security with a healthier lifestyle for the population.

Using our present methods, significant food waste occurs at all stages of the food industry. The first waste stream occurs at the production stage due to damage and accidental harvesting through weather, pestilence and machinery, resulting in unsuitable quality and appearance. In storage, losses can be attributed to pests and micro-organisms causing reductions in the nutritional values and edibility of food. Further losses are generated during processing and packaging due to the handling of food and by shrinkage in weight or volume. Whilst foods which contradict safety standards need to be removed from the food chain, such regulations can conflict with efforts to reuse food waste such as in animal feed. The amount of food wasted before arriving at the retailer is unknown but may amount to at least 20% of that farmed.

Of the food which arrives at the retailer 5% is wasted due to exceeding ‘use by’ dates and package damage. Dr Martin Caraher, an expert in food policy at City University in London, says: “Use-By dates are in retailers financial interests. If customers throw food away, they have to replace it by buying even more. Use-By dates can be a happy accident for them”.

The largest waste stream is by the consumers themselves who throw away 30% of all preventable wasted purchased food. Whilst a proportion of this is discarded by being left uneaten on the plate or unserved, much food is rejected for being unfresh or beyond the ‘use by’ date of the package label. Whilst this could be blamed on poor domestic management, consumers are heavily influenced by marketing practices, and have limited control over purchase quantities and the packaging of food, which are the responsibility of the food industry.

Finally, including children it is estimated that we eat on average about 2320 Kcal/day/person in the UK. This, could be an underestimate, yet is still 10% more calories than is necessary for an average persons recommended intake based on the UK age distribution and gender and reference nutrient intake tables. In addition to placing extra strain on the food supply chain, this can lead to a variety of health problems for individuals who eat far more than their required intake.

In total, according to these calculations only about 45% of the food actually farmed is actually necessary for adequate nutrition, and most of the remaining 55% of waste is preventable, amounting to the equivalent of 72 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year in the UK. This is approximately 10% of the total UK output and almost as much as its entire transport system!

There have been previous initiatives to reduce food waste. The official UK government line is that “most of the major supermarket retailers in the UK….have committed to work with the Government’s waste-reduction programme (WRAP) to identify ways they can help us, their customers, to reduce the amount of food thrown away”.

However, are we taking a too lenient line with the food industry? The Sustainable Development Commission thinks so. It condemned targets set by WRAP as “unambitious and lacking urgency”. with multi-buy promotions helping to fuel waste and obesity in Britain. Mr Lang, who is also professor of food policy at City University, London said that three years ago, the government-funded WRAP left it up to supermarkets to find voluntary “solutions to food waste” in an agreement dubbed the Courtauld Commitment. “The Government is frankly not using its leverage adequately. It really should toughen up on Courtauld, which must be enforced because this is ludicrous”. An 18-month study, which found that “too many supermarket practices are still unhealthy, unjust and unsustainable”, said Wrap should adopt a “more aspirational approach to reducing waste in food retail by setting longer-term targets and [supporting] a culture of zero waste”.

All this suggests that voluntary regulations are either ineffective or far too slow to take effect. The bottom line is that waste is endemic to contemporary economic ideology because corporate obligations require them to increase growth and profits and an effective means of achieving this is by encouraging excessive public consumption. Until these objectives are replaced with ones that are more beneficial to society than businesses, any significant progress in meeting sustainable targets without imposing strong regulations will be very limited.

Based on this information it is possible to draw up a list of obligations that could be imposed on the food industry to significantly reduce food waste.

1 Retailers should be obliged to stock a proportion of food, that would be presently rejected due to appearance, but otherwise meets safety standards. This could be marketed as cheap ‘sustainable’ produce in addition to, or possibly in preference to expensive organic foods which are of dubious health and environmental benefits.

2 Hotels, Restaurants and other communal places of eating could purchase this sustainable produce to meet their environmental targets. The food could can be re-cut for aesthetic value or simply merged with other foods in pies & stews etc.

3 Retailers should be obliged to sell all stocked food by a ‘use by’ date or pay a tax that should be set high enough to discourage waste. One method of achieving this would be to introduce a variable pricing mechanism based on the demand throughout the sale period which is gradually reduced to near zero by the use by date.

4 Damaged packets should be re-labelled as low carbon pet food or animal feed if this doesn’t endanger safety, or if this is not possible, biodegraded using composting and anaerobic digestion to produce methane for fuel and enrich agricultural soil.

5 To avoid consumer waste, all foods should be purchasable in smaller amounts at a constant unit price and separated into compact sealable units to ensure they are kept fresh as long as possible. This would avoid excess buying which often leads to waste.

6 Retail policies that lead to excess buying should be discouraged. These include moving items around the store and placing essentials at the rear of store to encourage coverage and residence time. Retail promotion and prominent positioning that encourages purchasing should also be reserved for sustainable products.

7 When new products are introduced small samples should always be offered, so as to avoid buying large quantities of unwanted food.

8 Unnecessary purchases and impulse buying could be minimised by avoiding trips to the retailer altogether through Internet ordering and cost competitive and environmental delivery schemes such as the COAST system suggested in this report. This purchasing system would help consumers manage shopping more efficiently via web based shopping lists, by anticipating when a new item is needed from the date and their purchasing history. This system would reduce waste and excess eating by minimising any excess food lying around the home.

9 Restaurants and fast food outlets should always offer the option of smaller portions with a proportionate reduction in price. Private servings are obviously more difficult to reduce; however, promoting a general culture of rejecting waste and extravagance should be nurtured amongst the public.

10 Health advice needs to consider promoting more durable foods in preference to perishable fruit and vegetables if these offer a more practical, equally nutritious and ‘low carbon’ alternative.

11 Temperature sensitive strips could be placed on selected packages that warn the consumer if the fridge thermostat has been set too low.

12 Set tough annual targets for reduced waste throughout the food industry

These measures should increase the worlds food supply by reducing food waste rather than increasing production with a corresponding benefit for the environment.

Let’s not be reticent about confronting businesses and politicians with these ideas if they claim to be genuinely concerned about minimising waste, and ensure we are not fobbed of with offers of voluntary measures and green wash!