Episode 7 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.

I think they encourage you to buy more than you need.

And that causes a lot of waste.

Whether you're staying in, or going out,

you've told us you can feel ripped off by the promises made

for what you eat and what you pay for it.

How do you know that it's half price? Right.

So what they've done, they've bumped the price up

and they've knocked it down.

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 welcome to Rip-Off Britain,

where this series we're investigating some of the questions

and problems that you've sent us to do with food.

Which, of course, is an area where not everything

is always quite as it seems.

And, of course, there is absolutely no shortage of controversies

and arguments about what we should or should not be having.

And, let's face it, every day seems to bring with it

a new scare story or a scientific study.

Sometimes totally contradicting what has been said in the past.

You know, we can end up spending as much time talking about our food

as actually eating it.

And it can be really frustrating trying to make sense

of all the information that's out there,

which, of course, is where we come in.

Indeed it is because today we'll be finding out more

about some of the food, drinks and ingredients

that have made the headlines or caused controversy.

So get ready for some surprises as we find the truth.

It isn't always what you expected.

Coming up, the energy drinks that pack a powerful punch.

Why the experts, schools and parents all worry

about just how many of them kids are knocking back.

I really don't think you should be drinking them.

You know, do you know how much caffeine there is in this?

It really can't be good for you.

And the toxic chemicals routinely used to grow our fruit and veg.

We'll test just how many are still there by the time we buy them.

I go around the supermarket and I see the vegetables

and the fruit and I wonder what's been put on that

to make it look so perfect. And I do feel nervous about it.

Now, let's talk energy drinks.

They boast exotic-sounding ingredients like guarana,

or taurine. They promise to make you more alert,

to increase concentration and, of course, to boost your energy.

And that's mainly because they're made with caffeine,

lots of caffeine.

Which probably isn't a problem for most adults

but could be for kids, some of whom are drinking a lot more

of these powerful drinks than anyone would say is safe.

If you buy into their high-adrenaline ad campaigns,

energy drinks are designed to give that extra boost

to anyone who's into extreme sports,

loud music and a fast-paced lifestyle.

In short, they're marketed as pretty cool,

which is one reason why these drinks have become such a hit

with another group too.

15-year-old Corin Skinner, from Galloway,

is especially keen on this one - Monster.

Much to the frustration of mum Susan.

So, Corin, what do you find so attractive about this stuff?

It's like a cool kid thing to drink.

-Is it?

-Yeah.

-And are most of your friends using this stuff as well?

Nobody really thinks it's bad though,

you don't think about that, you're just thinking about,

"Oh, I've got my five cans of energy drink."

People like to brag about it, like, "Oh, I've got..."

-So you drink five cans in one evening?

-No, not me.

Corin started drinking energy drinks when he was 12.

And, like many of his friends, soon started having several cans a week.

There was this one time when I was in town, when I had about four

and...I just kind of felt sick afterwards.

Along with thousands of other teenagers with spending money

burning a hole in their pocket, Corin bought his energy drinks

when out with his friends.

So Susan initially had little idea that he was drinking them.

I started to worry a bit when I found underneath the bed,

along with all the usual sweet wrappers,

one or two of these cans of high-energy drinks.

I had some concerns about him being able to get these

and drink them without my control.

When you stay up to two o'clock in the morning,

-playing your games, you want to do this stuff and drink it?

-Yeah.

I really don't think you should be drinking them.

You know, do you know how much caffeine there is in this?

It really can't be good for you.

Corin's can of choice, Monster, is the third bestselling brand

of energy drink in the UK.

Like three others in the top five,

Red Bull, Relentless and Rockstar,

every 100ml of Monster contains 32mg of caffeine.

The same as just under half a shot of espresso.

Market leader Red Bull has in the past been criticised

for its caffeine levels.

But the cans of relatively new kids on the block,

Monster, Rockstar and Relentless,

are twice as big as a typical-sized Red Bull.

Which means each 500ml can of these three drinks

packs in the same amount of caffeine as two shots of espresso.

There's no official recommendation for how much caffeine

is safe to consume every day, but it's generally agreed that adults

shouldn't have more than 400mg,

that's about ten cans of cola,

or around two and a half cans of these energy drinks.

But for children,

it's around 150mg per day,

less than one can of these

monster-sized energy drinks.

And, from what we've heard, an awful lot of kids don't stop at one.

Too much caffeine can lead to palpitations,

heart problems and headaches.

But combined with the sugar in the drinks,

it has also another effect,

one that some people might think is positive.

Yeah, I like energy drinks because of the buzz that you get

but after a while, it starts to wear down.

I used to consume about two to three a day

and then I had to give them up.

This school in Haydock, on Merseyside,

banned all energy drinks in 2014

after both staff and students raised concerns about the effects that

it was feared they could be having on some of the pupils' behaviour.

The children actually came to me and said,

"We think that we ought to do something about this."

I gave the children a one-week amnesty,

where we warned them, took the drinks away

and gave them back at the end of the day.

And now, sadly, they get poured down the sink.

Here today, I have no doubt that there'll be one or two children

who have possibly secreted the odd can or bottle

in their pocket, at the bottom of their bag or whatever.

But now they know that this will be enforced.

And though she can't prove it's entirely down to the ban,

Dee is convinced that a year after pouring away all those confiscated

energy drinks, it has had a dramatic effect right across the school.

Detentions over a 12-month period

fell by over 40% from the beginning of the year,

before the ban, till the end of the year

after it had established itself.

Concentration is better, the school is calmer,

children move between lessons in a calm way.

Not that they were bad to start with but every little helps.

The views of the pupils themselves are a little mixed.

I think it was quite a good thing to do to ban them

but...I don't think they should, like, take them off them

and pour it down the drain.

They should wait till after school to give it you.

And it's not just pupils at the school who are under prohibition.

Oh, you can't drink that here!

Oh, sorry... Sorry, I didn't realise.

I'll have that.

In December 2014, the Food Standards Agency introduced rules

forcing manufacturers of drinks with a caffeine content

of over 150mg per litre to make that clear on the can.

Along with a warning explicitly stating that they are not suitable

for children, or for pregnant or breast-feeding women.

And it's their advertising campaigns that have led to concerns

from some that these drinks are being particularly targeted

at young people.

Children are attracted by the names

that come out from some of these energy drinks.

Monster? Is that something that appeals to 20, 30-year-olds?

Or does it appeal to somebody who's 13, 14, 12?

Er, they're very keen when they see that.

Branding expert Gary Davies also believes that the popularity

of some of these drinks with young people is not accidental.

If you look at the websites of some of these companies,

one in particular, the Monster brand,

have an associated website that refers to The Monster Army.

And this is a bit of promotion by the company,

which is targeting, in their words,

"Athletes from the age of 13 to 21."

And they're encouraging young athletes to apply, basically,

for sponsorship. That means that you are deliberately targeting

13-year-olds with your product.

And, personally, I think that's totally unacceptable.

But Monster isn't alone in linking its brand to activities

that are popular with teenagers.

Rockstar, sold by British company Barr,

supports professional alternative sports including BMX,

skating and wakeboarding.

And while Relentless, which is made by Coca-Cola,

and Red Bull both have campaigns that are linked to either

gaming, music or extreme sports, Gary is in no doubt

that these too are likely to appeal to a younger market.

But for him, it's American-brand Monster that sets itself apart.

Because while there are certainly no laws stopping

its Monster Army promotion actively engaging with 13-year-olds,

Gary thinks the drink's high caffeine levels

makes that inappropriate.

Where a company deliberately targets, in this case, 13-year-olds,

then I think it's something that we have to put our hands up and say,

"Well, that's wrong, that should be stopped."

But Monster Energy rejects such criticisms,

stressing that it...

And, indeed, from its launch in 2002,

explicitly stated on the can that the drink is not recommended

for them, the first energy drink to do so.

It says the product is mainly consumed by young males

aged 18 to 34, so the brand initiatives and image

are aimed at them.

However, it says there's no problem for children

who choose to consume the drink. And while its Monster Army promotion...

..without its support, talented athletes would not have been able

to develop their potential, or turn professional.

It added that...

The makers of those other high-caffeine drinks,

Relentless and Rockstar, stressed that they follow

an industry code of practice, which states that they should not market

or advertise to under-16s.

They told us that their products...

Red Bull chose to let the industry body,

the British Soft Drinks Association, speak on its behalf.

The Association, which sets the relevant codes of practice,

told us that...

Even so, some people have called for a total ban

on children buying these kinds of energy drinks.

Because, as it stands, there's no limit on who can buy them

or how many they can buy.

Later in the programme, we'll see how much of a problem that really is

and hear why the government's school dinners advisor

believes that an age limit on selling these drinks

would be a very good idea.

Now, when you shop for your fruit and veg,

how much thought do you ever put into what pesticides

might have been used on them?

And whether there could be any traces still lurking

under the shiny skin of your apples or indeed, inside your lovely leeks.

Well, British farmers have used pesticides for decades

but there are those who remain very sceptical about using them at all.

And would even question whether they're safe.

So to find out if there is anything to worry about

or whether pesticides really are the key to keeping prices low

and the quality high, we've done a test.

And I must tell you, the results are quite surprising.

As the supermarket wars continue apace, one of the key battlegrounds

remains the fresh fruit and veg aisle.

Here, products from all over the world jostle for position

and most shoppers will be looking for the freshest, the juiciest

and most attractive specimens they can spy on the shelves.

Take the humble apple, for example.

How many times have we taken a minute or two, or maybe even longer,

searching amongst all the apples to make sure they don't have any

blemishes or bruises, hoping that they'll stay fresh

that little bit longer in the fruit bowl at home?

I know I certainly have!

In order to get those perfect-looking specimens,

many commercial orchards spray their apples up to 18 times a year

with over 30 different active substances.

From fungicides and insecticides to herbicides and growth regulators.

And that's what concerns Janet White from Kent.

Worried about the chemicals that had been used on the produce

in her weekly shop, Janet took matters into her own hands

and now, instead of buying all her fruit and veg,

she grows most of it, without pesticides, on this very allotment.

I grow these because they're easy to grow.

I don't really have to worry about any of the nasties,

-I don't need to put pesticides on them.

-And they don't attract slugs?

-There we go.

-And are you scared of pesticides?

I'm not really 100% comfortable with them.

I think there's so many things on food that we buy

that we have no control over.

I go round the supermarket and I see the vegetables and the fruit

and I wonder what's been put on that to make it look so perfect.

-And I do feel nervous about it...

-Is that a really big worry for you?

It's a worry, they import so much from abroad

and I have absolutely even less of an idea of what might be put on...

on fruit or veg that's imported.

So I just feel...I'd rather know what I was eating, where I can.

Pesticides protect plants from pests such as bugs and weeds,

so that more of a farm's crop flourishes and can be sold.

Pesticides might kill the bugs and weeds

but their use is so strictly regulated in Europe

that they shouldn't cause any harm to humans

because all that should be left on any fruit or veg

are minute traces or residues.

But even a small residue is enough to worry some people.

Campaigners Pesticide Action Network UK

have linked pesticide residues on foods to health risks

ranging from a hormonal imbalance to cancer.

And they're very worried that the number of foods sold

with residues present is increasing.

Using government figures, they found that 46%

of fresh vegetables and fruit, such as grapes and apples,

contained residues very much up from 25% in 2003.

So we thought that we'd do a little experiment of our own

and go to a nearby laboratory.

What we'd thought we'd do is to take some of the produce

that Janet has grown really naturally,

alongside the equivalent from a supermarket

and we'll test it all for pesticide residue.

Well, Janet, I see you've been busy digging out. Marvellous.

So, what have you got?

Right, we've got some leeks, a lovely baby squash,

some raspberries, some potatoes, a lovely beetroot,

-parsnip and a cabbage.

-You did well.

-We did very well.

Well, I'm looking forward to taking this lot now to the laboratory

-and I bet you'll be interested in the results.

-I can't wait.

-Thanks, Janet, you've been terrific.

-Thank you, Gloria.

-Thank you.

And it's here, not too far away from Janet's allotment,

that we sent our samples.

Kent Scientific is one of six local authority labs in England

which help police food safety.

The team tests around 4,000 food samples a year

for all kinds of safety concerns including pesticide residues.

The importance really is because pesticides are contaminants

and we just need to control and ensure that the levels in there

aren't going to cause any problems if you eat the food.

What do pesticides do to your body?

They can do a range of things cos they've got a range

of chemical structures, but in the worst case, they're cancer causing.

So, that's what we need to ensure we control.

So is it OK to have a certain level of pesticides?

Yes, I mean, as long as that pesticide is below

its maximum allowed level, then it's fine.

It's there not as a safety level but it's there as a trigger level

and anything above that, there'd be concerns.

Jon not only tests food for sale in our shops

but also produce arriving from abroad at UK ports.

And because these imports aren't subject

to the same tight regulations

as food grown in Europe, it's more likely that they could be

breaking the rules on pesticide residue levels.

Do you often find that a lot of the stuff you test

-breaks that legal requirement?

-Yeah, I mean, we do fail products.

A number of products that we've come across lately

have been rejected just because of high levels of pesticides present.

We've been looking at products coming in from Africa

and these have been dried products, things like dry beans.

They had a particular residue in there, which was cancer causing

and it was well above its maximum residue level.

-Oh, that's scary, isn't it?

-You're talking about hundreds of times

-above its maximum residue level.

-Hundreds above?

Hundreds of times above its maximum residue level.

And they were rejected outright.

They won't even come into the food chain.

But what about our own test?

Pitting Janet's allotment samples against their supermarket cousins,

to see what traces of pesticides Jon can find.

From Janet's haul he tested her raspberries,

cabbage,

squash and potatoes.

And for each of those, we matched them up with equivalent produce

bought from the supermarket nearest to Janet's allotment.

Obviously, Janet was very keen to find out Jon's results in person.

You'll be pleased to know that the four samples from your allotment

-did not contain one single pesticide residue.

-Thank goodness.

-So, I can claim to be organic.

-You can certainly,

-in terms of the pesticide analysis.

-Oh, I'm really pleased.

Really, really pleased.

That result is what Janet expected.

But what about the supermarket produce?

The stuff she avoids cos she's worried about how many

pesticide traces might still be on it.

None of the produce we tested was organic,

so pesticides will have been used when they were grown.

But did any trace of those pesticides remain?

Of the four supermarket samples, only one of them actually contains

-a single residue...

-Really?

-..which is quite pleasing

in the sense of supermarket foods as well.

The sample that contained the residue was the raspberries

and, in fact, the residue that we found was below

its maximum residue level. In fact, it was only a tenth

-of its maximum residue level. So...

-And that's acceptable?

-That's more than acceptable.

-Now, you see that proves a certain point,

doesn't it? Because, if you're saying that three out of the four

actually were free of pesticide from the supermarket,

it does beg the question, is it worth all this effort

in an allotment and growing organic, if in essence

you can pick it up at the supermarket?

I think the difference is that if you grow them yourself,

-you know what you're putting in there.

-Yeah.

-And you should have a lot more confidence.

-I do.

And the flavour is always so much better and you get so much pleasure

-out of the hard work that you've done as well.

-It's true.

Are you surprised though about the results of the supermarket ones?

I am cos I suppose we have this kind of fear that, you know,

-supermarket, bad...

-Yeah, yeah.

-..home-grown, good.

-That's right.

-And now I feel quite comfortable...

-Yeah.

..buying in the supermarket.

And, clearly, there's no reason why she shouldn't.

The government body that sets the limits on pesticide use

is confident that there's nothing to worry about.

Stressing that the residue levels found in most fruit and veg

approved to be sold in the EU

are too small to be any threat to human health.

Having tested a range of products certainly from within

the European Union, we tend to find not that many problems.

So if you do encounter one,

the chances are, the level is not particularly high.

So I... it hasn't swayed me from moving,

certainly from routine non-organic produce to organic, no.

Some people would find that quite surprising.

Well, I mean, perhaps so but I think if you do wash before you eat them,

I think, essentially, you're reducing that risk.

So having spent some time in the lab,

I would have to say that it's very reassuring

to know that professionals like Jon are constantly testing,

to keep the levels of pesticide below the legal limit.

But what have I learnt personally from my day-to-day life?

Well, on one level I've learnt not to be too strung up

about organic versus non-organic because, as indeed Jon said,

thorough washing of fruit and veg actually takes care

of most pesticides.

I'll tell you something, in the future, I will be very diligent

about how I prepare my food at home,

and for once, this apple has been very well washed.

Mmm.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain.

If sugar really is as bad for us as some people say,

then which of the alternatives are any better?

With a lot of these, sort of, natural sugar alternatives,

there's an awful lot of bold health claims out there,

which people are prepared to pay a lot of money for.

And it makes me really angry, in a way, to see that.

You know, these days, sugar has become something of a dirty word.

In the space of just a few years, sugar's star has fallen

and a host of alternatives have been rushed on to the market.

The makers of these low-calorie sweeteners are desperate

to convince us that, thanks to them,

we can all have our cake and eat it.

But are these sugar substitutes all that they seem?

Well, to find out, we've put five of the most popular

to our own bake-off test.

It's been a crucial part of our diet and our cooking for donkey's years.

But recently sugar has become so controversial

you'd be forgiven for thinking it was public enemy number one.

We're always being told we consume too much

and some scientists say it's a direct cause of the obesity crisis.

But if you want to cut down on sugar without missing out

on that lovely sweet taste, what can you use instead?

Some of the alternatives to sugar have themselves

been just as controversial.

So if, like Nicola Tott from Stockport,

you're looking for a balanced diet that's not heavy on sugar

or artificial sweeteners, the choices are limited.

And while she's keen to keep her family healthy,

they've all got very clear ideas about what they want to eat.

We try and buy fresh food where possible

but generally it's not that easy, especially if you're busy

and the kids generally don't want to wait for me to cook a long meal.

They'll only eat things that are generally bright in colour

and that are tasty, like sugary things.

Nicola's keen to limit how much sugar is in her children's diet

but doesn't really know what to replace it with.

I don't know much about alternatives but I'd definitely be interested

to find out more about it. If there was something out there that was

sweet but really healthy and natural, then I think every parent

would be really interested in it.

Alternatives to sugar are widely available in every supermarket,

some of them are natural, some of them are not.

Either way, if the makers are to be believed,

then their products are just what Nicola is looking for.

You two, tea's ready.

But can they really do the same job as sugar?

Not just in terms of taste but in the cooking, too?

To find out, we asked professional cake maker Trudi Combey

to put five of the most widely available sugar alternatives

to the test, with a little help from Nicola.

And we'll see how each of them performs

when they're used instead of sugar in a simple recipe.

We're just going to use a basic shortbread.

That's cos there's hardly any ingredients in it

and you need a little bit of sweetness

and there won't be much to mask that sweetness.

And it should give us a good taste test to see whether it...

actually, they do taste differently.

Four of Trudi and Nicola's shortbreads will be made

with products now being touted as natural alternatives to sugar.

And one with an artificial sweetener that's been around for decades

and itself has had its fair share of controversy - aspartame.

You could just grease that and that if you want with those.

Among our natural sweeteners is one with the backing

of the biggest soft drinks company in the world.

Up to 300 times as sweet as sugar,

stevia has already joined the mainstream

after being used in Coca-Cola's newest variety,

reducing the calories in one can from 139 to 89.

It's very grainy.

We're also testing xylitol, a natural sweetener

that occurs in fruit and vegetables.

It's not quite the new kid on the block,

having been used in chewing gum for years.

-Which cutter do you want to use for the...

-Er, the stars.

-The star?

-Yeah.

-And our third natural sweetener is agave nectar,

widely touted as a healthy sweetener

and championed by celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow.

-Oh, a nice sloppy mess, that one. Can you see that one?

-Yeah.

But the best known of the products we're testing

is the one that's probably already in our cupboard - honey.

Lots of us have been using it as an alternative to sugar for years.

And now one of Britain's most famous cereals has swapped

at least some of its sugar for honey too.

-BOTH:

-Sugar Puffs, Sugar Puffs, up, honey-coated puffs in a milky bath.

In 2014, the manufacturers of Sugar Puffs announced

that they were going to reduce the sugar content

and replace some of it with honey and change the name too.

Manufacturers Halo Foods told us

they've been cutting the cereal's sugar content for years

and it now has a third less than it did 10 years ago,

which they say makes it significantly healthier.

It isn't the only breakfast cereal that makes a big deal

about getting at least some of its sweetness from honey.

But is honey, or indeed any of our natural alternatives,

a healthier option than sugar?

Well, Trudi and Nicola are testing them all out in their shortbreads.

We asked Tanya Haffner, from the British Dietetic Association,

whether these substitutes are really the key to replacing sugar for good.

With a lot of these sort of natural sugar alternatives,

there's an awful lot of bold health claims out there on the market,

which people are prepared to pay a lot of money for.

And it makes me really sort of angry in a way to see that.

We've seen a lot of manufacturers recently

starting to use honey, for example, instead of sugar

in some of the products and this really ties in with the fact that

consumers are really looking for something that is more natural

but we've got to be really careful with this term cos natural

does not always mean that it's good for you

and honey is a prime example of that.

It's got the same chemical structure as table sugar,

so it's treated by the body in exactly the same way.

So no difference in terms of its effect on your health.

And if honey isn't the altogether healthier sweetener

some people might have hoped, Tanya says the celebrity favourite

agave nectar may not be a better choice than sugar either.

Sorry, Gwyneth!

In the agave you've got a higher fructose content

and that has been reported to be more beneficial

for your blood sugar levels but in actual fact,

we have no evidence for that.

So, in my mind, as dieticians, we would say it's no different

from table sugar, in terms of your health.

Tanya is slightly more positive about xylitol,

which, despite its chemical sounding name, is natural.

This is xylitol, it's an extract from a plant,

it's not calorie free, it's got 30% less calories than table sugar,

so slightly better.

It's also slightly more slowly absorbed into the bloodstream,

which is a good thing.

But what does our dietician make of stevia,

which sounds too good to be true?

It has virtually zero calories and is completely natural.

It's 200 to 300 times sweeter than table sugar,

so we only need to use a very small amount.

It can be used in cooking, so it's stable, for example,

in baking and cooking, which some of the other

low-calorie sweeteners are not.

But some people have found stevia leaves a bitter aftertaste,

which is why manufacturers like Coca-Cola choose to blend it

with a lower level of sugar.

Meaning although stevia itself is calorie free,

the products it's in may not be.

So, it seems all these natural alternatives

have their pros and cons.

We'll be looking more closely at the artificial sweetener

used in our baking test - aspartame, later in the programme.

But the only real way to find the sugar substitute that's right for you

is to taste it. So back in Stockport, Trudi and Nicola are ready

to take their shortbreads out of the oven and do just that.

Oh! They smell good.

As far as they're concerned, neither the xylitol or the agave nectar

make good shortbread.

That was horrid and that was horrid.

The shortbread with the artifical sweetener - aspartame,

doesn't do so well either.

That was very sweet.

And the shortbread made with the honey...

That one's just horrid and doughy.

Which means that by far the most successful sugar-free shortbread

was the one made with stevia.

I think the stevia was my favourite.

In baking, in baking terms,

it resembled the sugar the most.

It's a pleasant taste.

It's not quite...the same taste as the sugar,

but it isn't an unpleasant one.

I would say the stevia was my favourite as well.

It tasted quite sweet,

not as sweet as the sugar, but still sweet enough.

Now, of course, our experiment was highly subjective.

And used in other ways,

or with a bit more practice and tweaking of the recipe,

all these sugar alternatives could do a useful job.

And Nicola's already thinking of other ways she could use them.

We do have, like, Greek yogurt with a honey.

So perhaps a Greek yogurt with fruit and the stevia could work.

They'd probably eat that.

And, possibly, I would consider using stevia in a cup of tea.

It's unlikely any of these alternatives

could ever replace sugar entirely

and, indeed, Sugar Nutrition UK,

the group that represents the sugar industry,

would say they don't need to.

It told us that table sugar is just as natural

as the alternatives we tested,

adding that all of these are comprised of glucose,

fructose or sucrose,

and "the body does not differentiate

"between any of these different types of sugar."

It went on to stress that...

What's more, it says government figures show

that over the last decade...

But if you are worried about your sugar consumption,

rather than cut it out completely,

the advice from the British Dietetic Association

is to gradually reduce the amount you take in.

I've done it within my family.

You start to reduce it really gradually

and your taste buds get used to that.

But don't use some of the natural alternatives,

like agave syrup,

believing that they're going to be beneficial to your health

or have less calories, because they don't.

And, in buying those,

the only difference to you will be on your purse,

where you'll be paying more money for them.

Next, more on those controversial caffeine-fuelled energy drinks.

You know, after just one can,

young people who knock back the bigger varieties

that now dominate the market,

will be right up to the limit of how much caffeine

it's generally recommended that they should consume in a day.

But, of course, many of them don't just stop with the one.

So, how responsible are the shops

when it comes to selling such powerful drinks

to their younger customers?

Well, we went shopping to find out.

Earlier in the programme, we met 15-year-old Corin Skinner,

who, like many of his friends,

used to be an avid drinker of energy drinks

such as Monster, Relentless and Rockstar.

There was this one time when I was in town when I had about four,

and I just kind of felt sick afterwards.

It just does something to you.

Corin has now cut down to just one or two energy drinks a month,

but his mum is not sure she's even happy with that.

So you're not really drinking it any more, are you?

No, I might have one today when I go to town.

I've not had one in about a month or so.

I'm worried about my son and other children.

You can just imagine being a teacher

having to teach a crowd of kids after lunch

when they've all had a couple of energy drinks,

that must be nightmare-ish.

I started drinking energy drinks when I was 12,

and...I just thought it was kind of cool to drink them

because my friends, they all drank them.

The big-brand energy drinks typically cost around a pound a can.

But with some own-label energy drinks costing as little as 35p,

they're well within the reach of those

with even the smallest pocket money allowance.

Sometimes, energy drinks are even cheaper than water.

You can buy bottled water for 80p,

which is much more expensive.

Cans like those that Corin and his friends would drink

each contain the maximum daily amount of caffeine

generally recommended for a child.

So, it's because some kids may buy three or even four in a day

that Susan thinks there should be tighter controls

on how they're sold.

I think they should be regulated like alcohol.

And, you know, I don't think 15, 16-year-old kids

are capable of making the informed judgments

about the effects that the ingredients of these drinks

can have on them.

So I think they should be regulated and they shouldn't be sold to them.

The government's school dinners advisor John Vincent

also believes that energy drinks high in caffeine

should not be so easily available to children.

There is some evidence that, for sports people, for sports teams,

a lot of caffeine consumed before a match

can actually have a beneficial effect on performance.

However, when it comes to children and the amount that they're consuming

and the way they're consuming energy drinks in schools,

they're very damaging.

The combination of caffeine and sugar in these drinks

is causing all sorts of havoc to behaviour and to health,

and we think children need to be protected.

First step is to encourage all head teachers

to follow the lead of those head teachers

who've banned the consumption of energy drinks in their schools.

The second thing, I believe,

is that retailers should not sell these drinks

to children under 16 years old.

The British Soft Drinks Association, which represents

the companies behind Relentless, Red Bull, Monster and Rockstar

recommends high-caffeine drinks should not be marketed at under-16s,

and suggests, "on a precautionary basis,"

that they're not consumed by them.

But they don't go far as saying they shouldn't be sold to them,

telling us there's no reason why that should be the case

when the drinks at most high street coffee chains

contain "the same or more caffeine."

Meanwhile, new laws mean that

the latest cans of all of these high-caffeine energy drinks

will have to carry a clear warning,

stressing they are not suitable for children.

But it may take a while for all the old cans

to work their way off the shelves.

And, certainly, when we checked a few shops in Manchester

several weeks after the new rules came in,

we couldn't find any cans of Relentless, Rockstar,

Monster or Red Bull

that yet had the new labels.

But as it stands,

whether they've got the warnings or not,

there's nothing to stop shops selling energy drinks

to children and young people.

Unless, of course, they choose not to.

We sent the 13-year-old son of one of our production team

into five shops in the same part of Manchester

to buy some of the higher-strength energy drinks,

to see if any of them asked his age,

or showed any concerns about him buying them.

None of them did.

Although one did make it clear to us

that they would not have sold the drinks to anyone under 11.

But there is one shop nearby that goes further.

Newsagent Sam Ulhaq has put his own voluntary ban in place,

and says he won't sell energy drinks to anyone under 16.

There's nothing...written down to say whether,

how old they've got to be,

and I feel a moral duty, obligation,

not to sell them to under-16s

for the sake of a few pennies.

It makes my conscience a bit clearer,

I'm not being a part of any harm to a child.

I think, in the long run, there has to be a standard age limit

because something is going get out of hand.

We contacted the companies behind

Relentless, Rockstar, Red Bull and Monster.

The ones that replied made it clear that

they didn't feel any sort of ban on selling to children was needed,

telling us that their drinks are marketed responsibly, and...

They reiterated that the labels make clear

both the caffeine levels

and that these are products that are not recommended for children.

Some of them pointed out that they do have cans

with smaller servings available,

while insisting, as the British Soft Drinks Association also did,

that there's as much, or more, caffeine to be found

in coffee shops on every high street.

As for Corin, he does still enjoy the occasional energy drink...

but nothing like as often as he used to.

I don't drink them as much.

I might drink them, like, once a month, but that's it,

I won't have much more because it's just a bit stupid.

Now, earlier in the programme,

we saw how some alternatives to sugar fared in a shortbread recipe.

Most of them were natural sweeteners,

like honey or agave nectar.

But one of them was artificial,

and it's been around for a while.

It's widely used in all sorts of food and drink,

but aspartame hasn't always had the best press.

And it's ended up with a reputation that, according to some,

it may not deserve.

Scare stories about aspartame

have seen the sweetener blamed for everything

from allergies and premature births,

to cancer and liver damage.

But should we really be so scared of it?

Aspartame is one of our most common sweeteners.

It's found in literally thousands of products,

in drinks, in artificial sweeteners that we find,

and it's something that is about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

But with aspartame, it can be very hard to separate fact from fiction,

especially when many of the scare stories

seem to come from reputable scientific sources.

The early sweeteners, like saccharine,

did produce some results that were worrying.

They were fed in very large quantities to rats

and did cause a form of cancer.

But the fact is almost anything,

if you feed it to rats in very large quantities,

will cause cancer.

If we were to try to reproduce that in human beings

we would literally have to go up to hundreds,

if not even, say, a thousand cans of drink,

to have the equivalent amount

and that just isn't going to happen.

Because aspartame is artificial,

there have been concerns about the way it changes in the body

creating potentially toxic by-products.

But Brian says this is a problem with many foods,

and the levels of toxin are tiny.

When we eat things, our stomachs break them down

and produce different chemicals.

And in the case of aspartame,

it is a poison, it is not good for you,

but the fact is, it only produces a very small quantity,

and plenty of other things we eat do as well.

Tomatoes, for instance, will produce more methanol than does aspartame.

Our body can cope with that level of toxin,

it isn't a problem.

It seems that however reputable the studies

showing aspartame can have some ill effects,

the problem with nearly all of them

is that they either relied on huge doses of the sweetener,

or were one-off studies that didn't show the same result again.

Back in 2010, a study in Denmark did find that

women who drank three cans of low-calorie fizzy drink a day

could have premature births.

But the fact is that this has been repeated several times since

and, every time, no effect has been discovered.

So this is again something where a single study has produced a problem.

In fact, there isn't one.

The European Food Safety Authority,

as well as our own Food Standards Agency,

have declared that aspartame is entirely safe

at the levels we actually eat it,

including for children and pregnant women.

In the end, it's like anything else,

in moderation it's fine,

you just don't want to overdo it.

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 you can send us an e-mail to...

Remember that The Rip-Off team is ready and waiting

to investigate your stories.

Well, as we've seen today,

it isn't always easy to get the whole picture

about the foods that we eat.

Indeed, some of the information that's around

may not even be the full story,

and yet, that top line may have stuck in our minds

so vividly over time

that it just becomes something that we assume is definitely true,

-when, in fact, that might not be the case at all.

-Totally.

But, you know, the one that surprised me probably most of all

was the test that we did on those pesticides,

because we've become so used to people telling us

that supermarket fruit and veg is absolutely covered in chemicals,

-that you end up believing that it's true.

-You do.

And yet, when we went to the lab,

there really wasn't much difference between all the produce

that had been grown with pesticides and the ones that hadn't.

Well, I'm sure we'll all continue to get

conflicting reports on what's safe to eat

for many years to come.

So, if there's anything you'd like us to investigate,

or even debunk,

then let us know.

..is, as ever, the easiest way to get in touch.

And we'll be back to get our teeth

into more of your food stories very soon.

-So, till then, from all of us here, goodbye.

-Bye-bye.

-Bye-bye.