Episode 1 Rip Off Britain

There's a lot we don't know about the food on our plates,

and the shops and the labels don't always tell you the whole story.

You think you're getting a bargain and you're not really.

They're just encouraging you to buy more of a product

when you don't need to.

Whether you're staying in or going out, you've told us that you can

feel ripped off by the promises made

by what you eat and what you pay for it.

What really winds me up is the price of so-called healthy food,

compared with the unhealthy stuff.

The unhealthy stuff seems to be so much cheaper.

From claims that don't stack up to the secrets behind the packaging,

we'll uncover the truth about Britain's food

so you can be sure you're getting what you expect at the right price.

Your food, your money. This is Rip-Off Britain.

Hello and thank you very much for joining us

once again on Rip-Off Britain, where every day this week we're

revealing the secrets of your shopping basket.

getting to the bottom of more of the food stories you've asked us

to investigate.

Today we'll be discovering some pretty surprising things,

about what goes into what we eat and what we get out of it.

For instance, we'll be exposing which food that's found its way

onto the shelves of some of our shops really shouldn't be there.

As well as discovering why a much maligned old faithful could be

every bit as good for you as its more expensive rivals.

And bad news coming up

if you're one of the millions of Britons who are chocolate lovers.

As, I have to say, are we three.

You may well have noticed over the last few years that some

of your favourite treats appear to have been shrinking.

But you may not know why or indeed what it means

for the chocolate of the future.

Well, we've had some of that futuristic chocolate made up and

we'll be putting it to the test as we find out some of the hidden

truths behind our favourite foods.

Coming up - it's lower in price,

but is concentrated orange juice also

less healthy than its more expensive rivals?

One of you wrote in asking just that so we've done a test to find out.

Well, I tend to avoid the concentrate

because I wonder what's been added and what's been taken away.

Why do they use concentrate and is it any better or worse?

And candy treats with dazzling colours and dangerously high

levels of E colours.

They may be a hit with the kids

but how come illegal sweets are being sold on British high street?

It shouldn't be coming in with those labelling deficiencies.

The problem we have is that if they've got the labelling wrong,

have they got something else wrong as well?

Now, how do you start the day?

Lots of us can't get going until we've had our orange juice.

But which orange juice is better for you?

Is it the cheaper concentrated kind or the more natural-sounding,

less-processed version which can cost a fair bit more?

I guess a lot of us would think that the pricier juice would be tastier

and healthier too.

But when we put that theory to the test, what we discovered was quite a

surprise and one that, over time, could save you an awful lot of money.

Concentrated orange juice has been on our breakfast tables since the 1940s.

Its popularity started to fade when not-from-concentrate

orange juices came on the market 20 years later.

It still makes up the biggest chunk of the billion litres

of orange juice consumed in the UK every year.

But we found quite a few people who said concentrate wasn't

the juice they preferred.

I usually tend to buy the one with juicy bits.

Personally I prefer non-concentrate.

Well, I think it's vitamins.

-I think it tastes nicer.

-Yeah.

-So it's a taste thing?

-Yeah.

-Yeah.

As we've just seen, chilled not-from-concentrate juice is seen

by some people as a cut above the cheaper stuff in long-life cartons.

The packaging is a little smarter and the labels often proudly say

things like 100% squeezed fruit,

pure premium or never ever from concentrate.

So you'd be forgiven for thinking that juice is not only tastier,

but better for you too.

And of course, there's something else that makes them stand out...

There's a real difference in price.

Juice made not-from-concentrate can cost twice as much as juice

from concentrate.

Rip-Off Britain viewer Brian Coote is among those who haven't minded

paying a bit more for their juice because they like the taste better.

Even so, Brian couldn't help wondering

if the extra cost also equalled extra goodness.

So, after being struck by the extraordinary range of juices

now available, he wrote to us.

There were so many different ones on the shelf, there was

fresh squeezed, pure orange juice, orange juice from concentrate,

orange juice drink,

and frankly they were confusing me

and I hadn't the faintest idea what was the best for me.

Brian doesn't generally buy the old faithful made-from-concentrate,

but he's wondering if he should reconsider as it would cost him

so much less than some of the other juices on the market.

I tend to avoid the concentrate

because I wonder what's been added,

what's been taken away,

why do they use concentrate and is it any better or worse?

The ones that claim to be fresh squeezed juice,

you look at the sell-by date,

you might only have a couple of days on it.

You look at the from-concentrate and you could have two weeks on it.

That makes a big difference to me as a pensioner.

So how are the different kinds of juice made?

Home economist Gillian Marchak is going to take us through the basics

of the three types of juice on sale, kicking off with the obvious.

I'm going to start off with freshly squeezed.

Squeezing out all the juice.

'Freshly squeezed only lasts a few days, but it doesn't take much

'to turn it into the type of juice sold as not-from-concentrate.'

I've chilled the juice down so it's about two degrees.

Then I need to heat it up to 98 degrees Celsius,

in other words I'm going to pasteurise the orange juice.

'It's called flash pasteurisation.

'The juice heated just short of boiling point to kill the bacteria

'and as a result it can last up to three months.

'Concentrate orange juice is heated for a lot longer

'so it lasts longer too.'

It boils until it becomes quite a sticky syrup,

looking a little bit like this.

The concentrated orange juice for easy transportation

and then all you need to do to make it back into orange juice is

to replace the water.

But Brian wants to know what any of these processes might do

for the goodness inside and whether the cheaper concentrated

juice has less of the vital nutrients

that any sort of orange juice contains.

To help him find out, Brian has come to

Manchester Metropolitan University

to meet nutritional scientist, Haleh Moravej.

-Hi, Brian, how are you?

-I'm fine...

We asked Haleh and her team to compare samples of the three

main types of orange juice to see how the way they're made might affect

the nutrients inside.

We've got the freshly squeezed orange juice,

one from concentrate and one not-from-concentrate.

We tested the samples for vitamin C content,

antioxidants and also the sugar content.

First Haleh tested for vitamin C, probably the vitamin

and most associated with oranges.

Vitamin C is extremely important,

90% of vitamin C comes from fruit and vegetables.

Vitamin C is important for the immune system, it's great

for the connective tissue and prevents something called scurvy.

What sort of results did you actually get?

We found that in the freshly squeezed orange juice,

per 100 milligrams, it was 45 milligrams of vitamin C.

For the concentrate one, it was 32 milligrams

and for not-from-concentrate it was 27 milligrams per hundred.

There's little wonder that the juice squeezed just before the test

scored highest, but Brian is surprised that the concentrated

juice has more vitamin C than the pricier not-from-concentrate.

The results are a little bit interesting, but I'm very

disappointed about what was supposed

to be an expensive and premium product.

Next up, antioxidants.

They're found in fruit and vegetables

and help stop the body's healthy cells from deteriorating.

Looking at the antioxidants activity of the samples,

you'd expect the fresh one to have the highest, but it was actually

not-from-concentrate that had the highest level of antioxidant.

The final test was for sugar. None of the drinks included any added sugar.

So Haleh's testing for the levels that naturally occur in the oranges.

This is 200mls of freshly squeezed orange cheese.

It contains 15 grams of sugar

per 200mls.

The next one from concentrate

is 16.8 grams of sugar.

The least healthy one with sugar

is 17.2 grams of sugar

for the not-from-concentrate.

So in our test, the premium not-from-concentrate orange juice

contains more naturally occurring sugars than either of the other two.

It also shows slightly less vitamin C but a higher antioxidant count.

None of this is a problem.

But if you're paying extra because you think it's healthier,

well, it doesn't seem that's necessarily the case.

When you put it all together, it seems there's not much between them

when you look at the antioxidants and the sugar content

and the vitamin C content.

So it comes down to personal choice.

Now, we only tested one brand of each different type of juice

and the results in others may vary, but with the average carton

of concentrate juice costing £1 or more or less than its

not-from-concentrate rivals,

it seems that by going for the cheaper option, you could save

yourself a fair bit of money without compromising on the nutrients.

We put our findings to the makers of two of the best known

not-from-concentrate brands of juice,

both of whom stress they regularly test their products

against others on the market,

adding that they have independent scientific evidence which

shows you get a wealth of beneficial vitamins, minerals and antioxidants

from their drinks.

And of course there's still one all-important factor which

just might make it worth shelling out more for a premium juice.

That's the taste.

Let's put it to the test.

I'm in Bury Market in Greater Manchester, where people really

know a thing or two about food.

Their black pudding is famous all over these parts.

I want to find out if people can tell the difference between juice

made from concentrate and non-concentrate.

And...which they prefer.

I'd like you to drink one from each row and tell me what you think.

-Which do you prefer?

-That one.

-You prefer that one?

-Yes.

That's the concentrated one.

That's the expensive one.

Well done. You've passed the test. You're a canny shopper.

What was it about the difference between two of them?

If I'm honest, that had the smoother taste.

The shoppers in Bury didn't have a clear preference,

and liked both kinds of juice.

So again, if you've ever ruled out the cheaper concentrated kind

because you think it won't be as good, perhaps it's worth

giving it another go and saving yourself some cash into the bargain.

That's definitely what Brian is planning to do from now on.

I would tend to buy the one from concentrate,

mainly because of price.

That's going to change in my basic opinion now

since we've seen these good results.

Very good results.

Now take a trip to the shops with children

and amongst all the sweets on display,

there's a sometimes dazzling array of sugary goodies to catch the eye.

Personally I've never been against a sweet treat every now and again.

But the multicoloured ones aren't usually the first I'd buy.

Indeed, the ingredients that creates some of those bright, bright

colourings have long been a source of controversy,

so much so that manufacturers have to put warnings on the packets

if particular colourings are used.

But it seems there are some sweets creeping onto the

British shelves that aren't sticking to the rules.

# Red and yellow and pink and green... #

Bright coloured sweets can be the currency of many playgrounds up

and down the country, but although the kids might like them,

their parents, on the other hand, may be less keen to see

their children munching on some of these lovely colourful sweets.

Is there anything in there that you would, as a treat,

give to your child?

Um...

Possibly only the chocolate. But it would be a very special treat.

No chance.

So out of this mixture, what would you give your child as a treat?

-To be honest, none of it.

-None of it, OK.

And reactions like that tend to be for one simple reason...

-The E numbers.

-Quite a lot of E numbers.

There's a huge amount of E numbers, there's a lot of words that

I don't really understand, so that's not sounding brilliant.

The colourings and preservatives which include E numbers that

go into some of the foods aimed at children can cause real

headaches for parents.

Now, all these particular products are absolutely fine

according to the law, but some parents worry about

whether their children's more hyperactive moments could be

caused by the ingredients that gives some sweets their vibrant colour.

Colourings are certainly high on the hit list for John Griffin

and his team, who work in one of the ten UK local authority labs,

inspecting food to make sure that they are safe to eat.

Now, John, how long have you been aware of the effect

of colourings, particularly in children?

There was research done in late 2000 as to the effects of colours

on activity and attention in children.

These six particular colours were identified as having

an effect on those particular aspects of children.

Those six colourings,

nicknamed the Southampton Six after the university that carried out the

study, were found to have a direct impact on behaviour in children.

Just take me through them.

There are six here. They're all sort of reds and yellows.

You've got quite a dark red colour,

this is called Ponceau 4R.

This particular colour is a slightly

lighter red and it's called Sunset Yellow, nice name.

And this one?

This is Allura Red, so again another one of the Southampton Six.

Slightly darker red in colour

but quite commonly used in a lot of products.

The Southampton study even claimed that the effect

additives in colours like these can have on a child's behaviour is so

dramatic that banning them could

lead to a 30% reduction in ADHD in children.

The report made headlines and led to many of Britain's supermarkets

and big-name manufacturers

voluntarily taking them out of their sweets entirely

and replacing them with alternative colourings.

But in America, where a fair amount of our confectionery comes from,

the Southampton Six are still routinely being used in sweets,

so products with these colourings are often sold

on the high streets in the UK

and it's easy for John to demonstrate

just how vivid these controversial ingredients are.

Of those four artificial colours,

one, two, three are actually the six Southampton colours.

Wow. And that's only a very small bowl.

-Well, I'm not going to eat them, are you?

-No.

By law, any sweets that contain the Southampton Six colourings

can only do so at legally controlled levels

and they must carry a warning label on their wrappers,

explicitly stating that these colours may have an adverse effect

on activity and attention in children.

But in America, the rules are different.

No warning is required.

So to comply with UK rules, any American sweets sold over here

need to have a warning sticker added to their packaging.

The products we showed John -

and, indeed, to the parents at the school gates -

do have that warning.

But can parents always spot it?

Do you see a warning on that whatsoever?

Warning...

I don't see the warning. Where's the warning?

Well...I can't see anything.

Oh, yes - it does say...

SHE READS OUT WARNING

So you might think that this is all just fine.

The warning makes it clear that while these products

do contain at least one of these six colourings,

it's going to be at what the EU says is an acceptable level,

so you can make an informed choice

on whether you want to buy them or not.

But I'm afraid it's not always as simple as that,

because not all the sweets imported from America

and finding their way onto our high streets stick to the rules.

Here's the point - they may be legal over there,

but here, with no warning on the labels,

and potentially higher levels of artificial colouring

than we would allow here,

technically, they shouldn't be on sale in this country.

So why are they?

Rachel Wilcock is a training standards officer in Lancashire

who specialises in food safety.

We were becoming aware that there was a flood of these sorts of products

coming onto the market.

We'd noticed lots of little stalls popping up around town centres

and also products being sold on Facebook and eBay

and other internet sites.

So Rachel and her team set out to investigate

how many other imported sweets might be on sale across Lancashire

without those crucial warnings

about how the colourings can affect behaviour.

We looked at 24 products from across Lancashire.

17 of them were found to have incorrect labels.

This could have been either just a general incorrect labelling format

or that there was...the warning missing,

relating to the Southampton Six colours.

Without a warning, you might not realise

the significance of the colours listed in the ingredients list,

especially as in America, some of them have different names.

And that wasn't even the worst of it.

Five of the products were found to contain higher levels of colour

than were permitted by the European Union.

With the evidence suggesting that high levels could be linked

to an effect on behaviour, Trading Standards swung into action,

because - whether the individual sweets would be a problem or not -

without that crucial warning, even selling them is illegal.

Now what we'll do is contact the businesses

who have sold these products.

We'll also chase the products up the chain to the importers

and, for the products that have got high levels of food colour,

we'll speak to the Food Standards Agency

and look to start getting these products out of the market.

But that could be a bigger job than they think because,

as one of our researchers discovered on a quick trip

to two sweet shops in Manchester, the kind found in many town centres,

imported products without the right labelling are all too easy to find.

So I've got about 12 products with me

and there's nothing that has any warning labels

or anything that says "may have adverse effects on children".

We asked John Griffin to cast his expert eye over we had bought.

If I just take a quick look at the label...

You can usually tell straightaway whether it's complying.

This particular one doesn't look as if it is at all.

I'm just looking at the bottom, in terms of artificial colours,

and it gives its name as "red 40" -

that's not a colour that we would identify with over here.

Red 40 is just another name for Allura Red,

one of the Southampton Six colours.

It shouldn't be coming in with those labelling deficiencies.

It really should be relabelled for the European market.

The problem we always have is that if they've got the labelling wrong,

have they got something else wrong as well?

Now, it isn't the fault of the American manufacturers

if their products have been imported and sold in the UK

by a third party without their knowledge or permission,

which is what all the big companies we contacted told us was the case

with the ones that didn't have the right labelling.

They went on to stress that their products are made to suit

the tastes and legal requirements of each individual market,

with some reiterating that the sweets made and authorised

for sale only in America should not have found their way here

in the first place.

But in any case, the companies made it clear

that wherever a product is sold,

it will always have met their own quality and safety requirements.

Meanwhile, it seems that unwrapping the truth of what's in all those

brightly coloured imported sweets is more tricky than it should be.

Rachel from Trading Standards has some final words of advice.

I would always suggest buying products from a reputable source,

a reputable business, and perhaps avoid purchasing things like this

from the smaller internet businesses, auction sites, things like that,

because we don't always know where those products are coming from.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain -

would you know which of these everyday treats

packs in the most calories?

Custard and chocolate? Custard and chocolate, that.

-Are you saying that's the most?

-Yeah.

-Wine's fattening.

-So is beer.

And chocolate lovers, look away - are we heading for a future

where our favourite treat as we now know it

has become a thing of the past?

It's not bad, but it's not real chocolate, is it?

It's not real chocolate, no.

You know, there's no denying that an awful lot of Brits

do like a drink or two, even perhaps just occasionally.

And while you may well consider how many units of alcohol

there are in your favourite tipple,

chances are you don't give the same thought

to how many calories it might have.

But maybe you should,

because if you realised that your large glass of wine contains

the same number of calories as a bar of chocolate,

or that a pint of lager has the same as a slice of pizza,

you might just think twice about reaching for another.

This bunch of fierce competitors

are the Blackbirds netball team from southwest London.

They like to work hard and play hard,

both on and off the court.

Netball's a great way to keep fit.

Let's use it!

We play in the top division so, you know, it's really competitive

and we definitely always want to win.

But the women all agree that it's the social aspect of the game

that they look forward to as much as the netball itself

and that usually involves one or two drinks afterwards.

Netball, to me, is a great way to be social and fit at the same time.

Play hard on the netball court, make sure we win.

Either way, come to the pub afterwards,

have a drink with your team-mates.

So after a hard training session,

the team likes to unwind with the odd pint of beer or glass of wine

at their local pub here in Fulham.

And as last week's Player Of The Match,

Nicky gets a free drink.

-You're so bad!

-I'm terrible!

But like most of us,

while the girls think about how many units of alcohol

they might drink on a typical night out, they don't give any thought

to how many calories they may be consuming at the same time.

Calories in this pint? Absolutely no idea.

I've never heard anyone mentioning a calorie count

when it comes to alcohol.

I've never heard anyone say, "I'm going to have this,

"because I'm watching my weight."

But with obesity on the rise,

many experts suggest that alcohol is fuelling the problem

and while we all know that too much ale can lead to a beer belly,

we may not always realise that other drinks

can have the same effect, too.

So to give our netballers a better understanding of exactly

how many calories they are taking on board in their booze,

each of the team has agreed to keep a diary for the next week,

detailing all the alcohol they drink

and once the seven days are up,

we'll calculate how many calories they've knocked back.

I guess adding it up, it might be a shock.

But while they get started on that,

are they so unusual knowing so little about how many calories

they're unwittingly drinking?

We asked some punters in another pub to guess which of these four items

is the most and the least calorific -

a pint of lager, a small slice of chocolate cake,

a large glass of white wine

and a chocolate and custard doughnut.

They're all convinced they know the answer,

but only one of them will end up getting it totally right.

Well, that's quite high

in calories, isn't it?

Custard and chocolate.

Custard and chocolate, that.

Right. Well, that's first.

No, no - that's first.

-That's got sugar and chocolate on it.

-Yeah, but so has that.

-Are you saying that's the most?

-Yeah.

-No, that's the most.

-No, it's not.

-It is, that's just cos you like it!

THEY LAUGH

I just think wine is better...

..than lager.

There's a lot more chocolate involved in that -

white chocolate, brown chocolate -

and I believe there's bits of chocolate in the middle, as well.

-I think the wine has probably got the least.

-Least, yeah.

-Wine's fattening.

-So is beer.

OK, I'll agree. We'll agree.

The least calories is going to be...

..that.

The muffin. And the big daddy at the end.

Cos there's more fat women than fat blokes.

Well, he might have called it a muffin, but he's no doughnut.

And - ignoring that last comment - he has identified the right order.

It's the large glass of white wine that has the most calories -

on average, 185.

Next is the pint of lager and the chocolate cake,

both of which have 180 calories.

But - perhaps surprisingly - the least calorific

is the chocolate and custard doughnut,

which has 143 calories.

No!

Official figures show that 80% of people don't know

how many calories there are in a pint of beer

or a glass of wine, and dietician Dr Carrie Ruxton

is concerned about what that means for the nation's waistline.

Alcohol's definitely contributing to obesity

and at the moment, alcohol contributes

about 6-7% of our daily calories

so that's a substantial amount

from a substance that's giving us enjoyment, of course,

but isn't giving us any other nutrients.

For men, the Department of Health recommends no more

than 21 units of alcohol a week

and for women, no more than 14.

If I was to drink my recommended maximum, I would be consuming

an extra 2,000-3,000 calories a week from alcohol

and that represents more than a day's calorie level.

So, I'm basically adding an extra day of calories on to my week

and that's going to have a significant impact

on my weight in the long term.

Most of the food products we buy do list the calorie content

on the packaging, along with full details of how much fat,

sugar and other things there might be.

But alcoholic drinks are currently not recognised as food

so, under existing European law,

they've been exempt from that type of labelling,

which is one reason why so many of us

have no idea at all how many calories we're knocking back.

I think we do have a funny relationship with alcohol,

where we almost see that it doesn't count,

it's not adding to calories,

and that's because it's not labelled,

we have a lack of awareness about how many calories

are in alcoholic drinks, so they're always seen as extra.

So when you go out for a slap-up meal, we don't say,

"I'm going to miss out on dessert because I'm having a glass of wine."

People will have the glass of wine or the pint of beer

on top of what they're already planning to eat.

Some experts have argued that better unit and calorie labelling

would reduce consumption by making drinkers more aware.

But others - including Carrie -

feel that it might not be the perfect solution.

I'm really ambivalent about calorie labelling.

My concern is what the unintended consequences are.

You walk into a pub, you look at the calorie content

of beer versus vodka, and you say,

"My goodness - that beer is very high in calories.

"I'm going to switch to vodka."

The trouble is that a pint of beer, which contains two units of alcohol,

is going to take you a fair amount of time to drink,

whereas two units of vodka is going to be a very small drink

which you could probably get down your neck a lot faster.

Back in London, it's been six days

since our netball team started keeping their alcohol diaries

but whilst Nicky and Heidi can tell us how much they've drunk,

they still don't know what that means in terms of calories.

I have no idea what to expect

but it would be interesting to see,

because I know that I drank different alcohols.

Obviously, I do a lot of exercise, so...I guess what I don't know

is whether that's going to outweigh what I'm drinking.

In total, over just one week,

our seven players have taken on

a staggering 13,070 calories

in booze alone.

That's the equivalent to 58 doughnuts

or up to 20 vindaloo curries.

And to burn all of that off,

they'd each need to play six-and-a-half netball matches.

Team captain Heidi is one of those leading the field

off the pitch as well as on it -

she sank almost 30 units of alcohol

and more than 2,200 calories

in booze.

That's the equivalent of ten doughnuts.

I was the top calorie consumer?

Really?

Not far behind is last week's Player Of The Match.

Nicky drank 2,104 calories.

I guess that's, like, the daily intake for a woman,

so...yeah, one extra day.

As if that wasn't enough food for thought,

wait till they see how all those calories

would stack up in doughnuts.

Here's the team's weekly calorie count - 58 doughnuts.

-58 divided by seven...49...56...

-That looks so fatty!

NICKY LAUGHS

That's like eight...

Eight doughnuts a week.

Looking at it like that, it looks so gross.

It's a bit of a shock, actually, looking at it in doughnut form.

In addition to the thousands of extra calories they've taken on,

the whole netball team consumed 183 units of alcohol, almost 26 each.

Nicky and Heidi had more than 57 units between them.

I'd definitely be concerned,

because not only are they exceeding the safe calorie levels,

they should be looking at 14 units a week,

they're getting more like 30 a week,

which is far higher in terms of their health.

So 2,000 calories a week extra

and that is calories coming from a source that doesn't provide them

with much else that's useful -

hardly any carbohydrates, no protein, no vitamins, minerals...

So it's empty calories, basically.

They think they're doing a lot of good by going off to play netball -

and they are, but then they're going to the pub afterwards

and undoing all that good work.

The Portman Group, which represents drink manufacturers,

told us that it must

"always be the alcohol content, not the calorie content"

of a product that should primarily inform consumer decision-making.

It says that drinks companies have an important role in providing

information about sensible drinking

and are always open to "further discussions"

about how best to do this.

But they added that as we live in the digital age, we should be

"thinking innovatively about how people access information,

"not just focusing on product labels",

which are limited in size and space.

As such, they recommend that anyone wanting to get calorie information

about alcohol use tools such as the free Drinkaware app,

which gives details on alcohol content

and calories instantly, via your smartphone.

And just last month, drinks giant Diageo,

whose brands include Guinness and Smirnoff,

announced that they intend to add calorie information

on the labels of at least some of their brands.

And while that's likely to be a long time off,

now that our netball team knows the truth about the calories

in their favourite tipples, I wonder will it make any difference

at all to what they drink.

It's definitely opened my eyes, this exercise.

Just thinking about it has made a difference,

so seeing it in black and white would definitely make a difference

and would definitely...make me stop drinking more

of the higher-calorie drinks.

Next, chocolate -

whether it's an occasional indulgence or an everyday treat,

I think each of us are reckoned

to eat our way through 4.5kgs of the stuff every year.

You've probably all noticed that chocolate bars and boxes

do seem to be getting a bit smaller,

while, of course, the prices stay the same.

So what does that mean for the chocolate of the years to come?

Well, when one Rip-Off Britain viewer wrote to us

very unhappy with what was inside his box of Christmas chocolates,

we knew we'd found the perfect person to investigate

how the chocolate of the future might look

and, importantly, how it might taste.

Like many of us, Roger Wood loves his chocolate.

But when he opened this box last Christmas,

he noticed that his favourite sweets were, well,

less of a treat than they used to be.

I was really surprised to see the reduced quantity of sweets in them.

It's a complaint we hear about all the big brands.

Ten years ago, for example,

a tin of Quality Street held 1.7kg of chocolate.

But over the years, those big tins and tubs seem to have shrunk,

until in 2014, Roger's held just 780g,

meaning he'd get less than half the chocolate that he used to.

Looking at it, you think,

"Ooh, that's fine, I'm getting the same as I paid for last year,"

but in reality, you're not. You're getting a few chocolates less.

Roger's Quality Street isn't the only chocolate that appears

to have been on a bit of a diet.

From Snickers to Mars Bars,

the size of many of our chocolate treats have reduced.

And that's not the only charge

that's left chocolate fans flummoxed.

In January, Cadbury caused a stir

when they changed the recipe for the chocolate in their Creme Eggs

and at the same time reduced the number of eggs

in a multipack from six to five.

Shrinking treats is a familiar complaint

for chocolate consultant Jennifer Earle.

I've seen lots of comments from outraged people

that there's fewer and fewer sweets inside every year,

yet they're paying the same price for them.

But the manufacturers have a simple explanation.

They all say that it's becoming more and more expensive

to make chocolate, mainly because, they claim,

the key ingredient - the cocoa - is getting pricier.

So rather than risk the wrath of retailers and customers alike

by upping their prices,

they've chosen instead to cut down the size of some of their products.

One way they might do that is by very subtly altering the shape.

One of them is Cadbury's reformulation of the design

of their Dairy Milk bar,

which went from being sharper edges to more a more curved edge.

What they've essentially done is shave 4g off the bar,

which means that the consumer who's eating one of these a day

is eating less cocoa over the year.

In the UK, there are strict rules

that say anything called milk chocolate

must contain at least 20% cocoa solids.

This is lower than other European nations

such as chocolate purists France and Belgium,

where to be considered as milk chocolate,

a higher amount of cocoa has to be used

and unlike in the UK, no vegetable fat is allowed to be included.

But products such as market leader Dairy Milk

already contain just that 20% minimum,

so there isn't a lot of room

to change the recipe to help keep the costs down,

which is why chocolate manufacturers

have come up with all sorts of creative ways to save money.

In 2013, Cadbury's brought out Marvellous Creations,

so very creative, including lots of candy, essentially,

so jelly beans, popcorn, banana chips,

things that are a lot cheaper than cocoa

and mean that essentially there is less cocoa per bar.

Other big names have also tweaked even their most familiar brands.

For example, in 2013, when Mars slashed 5g off a regular Mars Bar,

it wasn't just the weight that changed.

The recipe reportedly did too.

One of the ways that chocolate manufacturers

are making the cocoa go further is by adding other vegetable fats,

but not just that - adding sugars.

The Mars Bar reformulation some years ago now

made the chocolate layer much thinner,

so it was more caramel and nougat.

When we spoke to the best known chocolate manufacturers,

Nestle and Cadbury,

they reiterated that changes to the size of their products

are entirely down to the rising cost of ingredients,

but they insisted they're committed to good value

and to minimising the impact on customers.

Mars, however, took a different line,

saying its Mars and Snicker bars were resized and reformulated

to reduce the calorie content and promote responsible consumption.

It said none of its single-serve bars now has more than 250 calories.

The body that represents the cocoa industry sent a reassuring message,

telling us that contrary to some reports, there is...

But it seems that the chocolate makers face a real challenge

to keep our shelves stocked with products

that are the same price, size and taste as we want them.

So whether we like it or not, our favourite chocolates are likely

to keep changing, perhaps even a lot more than they have so far.

To get a taste of the future,

Roger has come to meet chocolatier David Greenwood-Haigh,

who's been pioneering new ways of making our favourite treat.

I've got some of the things you could actually add

into chocolate here - nuts, fruit, chilli, sea salt,

nougat, caramel, biscuits, wafer, those sorts of things.

-And these are all cheaper than chocolate?

-Absolutely, yeah.

In fact, adding unexpected extras to our chocolate is an old trick.

Manufacturers have been doing it

ever since the first chocolate bar was made in the 1840s.

If we take this bar here,

we've taken this, it's a really high-quality cocoa.

If I let you try that, there's actually wafer inside,

so that's taken 40% of the chocolate out.

-It's really good.

-Yeah.

Exactly, but it's 40% less,

-so it's a different product to the solid chocolate bar.

-Yeah.

And David thinks that that could be the way forward -

manufacturers making products with less and less chocolate

until there really isn't any of it left at all.

Instead, they'll use cheaper ingredients.

That means it looks the part,

but can't officially be called chocolate.

And it isn't years in the future.

David's already made a sort of "choco-not",

with no cocoa solids in it at all, just a smattering of cocoa powder.

But whatever's inside,

the only thing that really matters is the taste,

so to find out if it hits the mark,

Roger's going to compare this new recipe

-with the real thing.

-Try this.

-It tastes quite creamy.

-Yep.

-Very smooth and velvety.

-Yes.

If you try the other one and see what you think to that.

That's not quite as smooth, but it's more chocolaty, that one.

The first one I gave you has no chocolate in whatsoever.

It's palm oil, vegetable oil, cocoa powder

and then some vanilla and sugar.

There's nothing in there that would react in the same way.

Vegetable oil is much cheaper than cocoa butter.

So, is that branded as chocolate?

If I go into the supermarket, will I see that sold as chocolate?

-No, but you would be forgiven for thinking it was.

-Yeah.

By the time it hit you, it would be called "chocolate flavour"

or "chocolaty", like that one is.

When you look at most bars, something like this,

it'll say "chocolate".

-Right.

-Most consumers would actually not understand the difference,

because it looks the same.

So we could be heading for a future where we see

more and more bars marketed as "chocolate-flavoured"

rather than the real thing - normal, simple chocolate.

David's chocolate of the future is a hit with Roger,

but what will the people of his home town, Halifax, make of it?

He's hitting the streets to find out

whether they'd swap chocolate for "choco-not".

Tell me what you think of that.

It's not bad, but it's not real chocolate, is it?

It's not real chocolate, no.

-It tastes like chocolate to me.

-It does.

Not really my taste in chocolate, that one.

I think if you've got in shares in it,

you should withdraw them quickly.

-Not keen.

-You're not keen?

-No.

What is it, if it's not chocolate?

-Not chocolate?

-Nope.

Could have fooled me!

So the jury's out - some loved it, some didn't -

but while we may all one day have to get used

to a different kind of chocolate,

for now, Roger's happy to pay that little bit extra for the real thing.

In future, if I want proper chocolate,

I'm going to have to pay a premium price for it,

but I'm willing to do that.

As far as the Quality Street is concerned,

I'm happy to lose some of the weight in that product,

provided at the end of the day I know it is a quality product

and what I'm actually getting is something that I'm really paying for.

# Sweet like chocolate, whoa-oa. #

Here at Rip-Off Britain,

we're always ready to investigate more of your stories on any subject.

You can write to us at:

Or send us an e-mail to:

The Rip-Off team is ready and waiting to investigate your stories.

So it's clear that not all the secrets of our food and drink

can be uncovered just by looking at the label,

however much we might like to think that that's the case.

But as we've seen today, sometimes the story on the label

is a lot more complicated.

But with a bit of luck, we've given you something to think about,

so that next time you go shopping,

you'll understand a little bit more about what you're getting

and whether it's quite as good a deal as you thought it was.

And it should all help with the family budget.

I'm afraid that's where we have to leave you for today,

but please do keep all of your stories, your questions

and your comments coming

and we will be back to investigate more of them very soon.

In the meantime, I'm afraid that's where we have to leave you today,

so thanks for joining us and from all of the team,

-bye-bye.

-Bye-bye.

-Goodbye.