Episode 4 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.

Sometimes when you have these offers on in the supermarket,

you think you're getting a good deal.

But if you're actually throwing it away it's not a good deal.

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.

What really winds me up, I suppose,

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 welcome to Rip-Off Britain

where once again, we're lifting the lid on

what you need to know about food.

And today, we're exposing the secrets of

some everyday favourites that perhaps you haven't really

given a second thought to.

But after you've seen today's programme, I bet you will.

And that's because a number of you have asked us

to take a much closer look at some well-known foods that may not

be everything that you've assumed.

At least when it comes to what's inside them.

Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with them,

but in some cases,

the ingredients may not always be not only quite what you thought,

they actually might be rather less of them than you expected.

And of course, a few of the products that you've contacted us

about may cost a little more than some of the cheaper alternatives.

So we'll be trying to find out what you're actually getting

to justify paying the extra money.

So, as we get to the bottom of whether you really do always

get what you pay for,

hopefully you'll pick up a few tips that may well save you some money.

Coming up...

Think you're buying butter?

Well, you'd better take a much closer look at the label.

I thought, "Oh, butter." But when I looked at the list of ingredients

I found that it only has about 20% butter content.

And that shocked me.

And have you switched sugar for honey?

Find out if it's really any better for you.

A lot of people use honey in favour of sugar cos

they think it's a lot better.

Honey does have some nutritional value to it,

but it's not as great as people tend to think.

Now, smoothies have rocketed in popularity in recent years, with

many people seeing them as a quick and easy way to consume more fruit.

But which fruit?

Now, you may think it's pretty obvious from the name given

to the smoothie, be it a banana, mango, blackcurrant or whatever.

But it may not be that simple.

One of you wrote to us after noticing that

when buying one of the popular brands

that are available in the shops, the fruit that was named

on the label as the main ingredient may actually be nothing of the kind.

# Fruit ah-ah

# Saviour of the universe... #

Smoothies - a tasty short cut towards getting your five-a-day.

# Ooh, baby, baby... #

And a go-to drink for many who want a healthier option.

'Fruit now boosted with veg, seeds, vitamins and botanicals.'

And though you may need to keep an eye on how much natural sugar

is packed inside,

they're usually considered a step up from plain old fruit juice

as you'll get more fibre from drinking a smoothie.

What's more, the exotic-sounding fruits that are listed on the front

of the bottles mean that if you fancy a taste of the Tropics

on your lunch break, then these drinks are the way to do it.

But when our next viewer took a closer look

at the label on the one that he'd bought,

he was disappointed to find that his fancy-sounding smoothie

contained rather more ordinary ingredients than he'd imagined.

Dave Moore wrote to us from Cambridge when he noticed

that his smoothie - which has in it pomegranate, blueberries and acai -

actually contains rather more grape juice and banana than anything else.

Dave's drink would typically cost around £2 a carton.

A price he'd been happy to pay for the convenience,

potential health benefits and, of course, the taste.

But he wasn't so happy with the discovery that his smoothie

contained far less of the unusual-sounding ingredients

that he'd hoped for from the label, and rather more of the comparatively

run-of-the-mill fruits that he hadn't expected.

And you can see for yourself.

Ingredients are always listed in order of what's in there the most.

So the bulk of this smoothie is actually grapes,

followed closely by banana.

The fruit that comes first in the name - pomegranate -

makes up just 14% of the drink.

As for the blueberries, they're 3% of the total.

And the acai which, by the way,

is a berry often touted as a superfood, is just 0.7%.

Now, Dave wrote to us

because he doesn't think that he's getting quite what he paid for.

But it might not be quite that simple.

For starters, the composition of other big brand smoothies

and even juices isn't always what you might have assumed.

This Naked Red Machine smoothie may seem to be packed with

strawberries, raspberries and cranberries but in fact,

the main ingredients are apple juice and orange juice.

With pureed red fruits between them making up 11.5% of the drink.

And this Tropicana mango, peach and papaya juice

contains a total of only 29% of those three fruits.

Again, it's orange juice and apple juice that are in there the most.

Like Dave, you might wonder how it is that the main

ingredients of these drinks aren't the fancier fruits

that are labelled on the front but the altogether more familiar

ones that are found listed on the back.

Well, some of the fruits in his smoothie don't come cheap.

So is price the explanation?

-Thanks.

-Thank you.

Kate Harrison from Shaw in Lancashire

makes a living out of selling fruit and veg.

So she knows how much they are likely to cost.

She compared for us the cost of two of the ingredients

in the smoothie that Dave bought.

Starting with the blueberries that make up 3% of the drink.

So, if we were to take some blueberries...

They work out about 11.20 per kilo.

Next, she looked at the fruit that comes just

ahead of blueberries in the ingredients list. Oranges.

And it's immediately obvious which comes out cheaper.

The bulk of the product...

Say, for example, an orange, which is part of the smoothie.

That works out about £1.65 per kilo.

So, looking at the comparisons between the two, the bulk

of the item is substantially cheaper than the "main stated product."

So that is nearly £10 difference per kilo.

So the fruit that makes up the bulk of most smoothies,

the ingredients of which you'll usually find on either

the back or the side of most cartons,

are likely to be a lot more commonplace and certainly cheaper

than the rather exotic names that you'll find printed on the front.

And let's face it,

most of us probably would be prepared to pay just that little bit

extra for ingredients like pomegranate, blueberries and acai

rather than common old grape and banana.

But while the ingredients list on the back of the bottle spells

this out very clearly,

Dave isn't alone in wondering

if what it says on the front of these smoothies

and blended juices is as clear as it could be.

-You drink smoothies. BOTH:

-Yes.

So look at these labels and tell me

what do you think you're going to be getting in each of these packets.

-It says it's pure so probably, yeah, probably 100%.

-Yeah.

-Yeah, I reckon.

-You reckon that in your smoothie you're going to

get 100% of what it says on the label on the front?

-I think so.

-That's what I think.

And how much of those ingredients would you expect to

be in the cartons?

Well, one third, one third, one third.

-29%.

-Oh.

-The rest of it, though, is made up of orange and apple juice.

Which is shocking. Cos why are they pushing those varieties of fruit?

On the bottom, it does say that there are other things.

-And on the back of that one it tells you.

-In smaller text, yeah.

-You wouldn't look at that?

-No. No. Cos it's on the front.

You're buying it with your eyes.

But to put Dave's suspicions at rest,

no-one is pulling a fast one here.

And certainly none of these drinks are falling foul of any

labelling rules or regulations.

There is no legal definition of what a smoothie should be made up of.

And provided all the ingredients are listed in the right order,

manufacturers are perfectly entitled to put whatever

they like on their labels.

There are laws that apply to other blended juice drinks, such

as the Tropicana mango, peach and papaya juice that we saw earlier.

But even then, as long as all the bulk ingredients are listed

somewhere on the front of the bottle - no matter how small -

they too can market their juice under whatever name they like.

But the issue here isn't really about

the way a product is described,

it's how it's made.

Because that's what explains why the main ingredients aren't

always what you might think.

Rhiannon Rees has worked for a number of smoothie manufacturers

and knows that to get something to sell it's got to taste good.

If you're trying to sell it and market it commercially,

it needs to be really cost effective.

So you need to make sure that you're using delicious ingredients

but probably in a quantity that's not going to bankrupt you.

And also making sure that you are still getting that really

nice flavour balance, getting all of the right ingredients.

And that balance, not to mention taste, wouldn't be achieved if you

simply used the fruits that might be mentioned in a product's name.

To show why, Rhiannon got some volunteers to make

versions of the exotic sounding smoothies that we looked at before.

-Is this going in as well, the seeds?

-No, no.

You want to get rid of the seeds, definitely. Those can be discarded.

First, they're blending together only the fruits

listed on the front of the bottle or carton.

But it becomes clear very quickly that the result isn't

especially appealing.

It's thick, lumpy and bitter to taste.

See, it's almost more of a sort of puree consistency.

So, in goes the banana, the basis for most smoothies

because they add a natural sweetness and help with the texture.

The other smoothies have the orange or apple juice added.

They have a lot of liquid in them.

And again, that's not to bulk out the product with cheaper

ingredients, but to give it the consistency

and the flavour that it needs.

Now the consistency is a lot better.

Without those additions, smoothies just wouldn't taste right.

They'd be full of the ingredients you might have expected,

but you'd be less likely to buy them.

Mm, it's nice.

When we spoke to the juice and smoothie manufacturers,

they reiterated that their labels comply with all UK

and EU labelling regulations.

Innocent explained that the recipe name on the front

of its drinks is based on what the smoothie tastes of.

So the pomegranate, blueberry and acai one is called that...

The company said there'd be no point adding the word banana to the

name as the product doesn't taste of banana.

And, in any case, it's satisfied that its labelling,

which has been reviewed by independent experts, is clear.

Innocent went on to stress that it's only by adding the juice and

banana base that smoothies are more than simply pureed fruit solids.

And the variety of fruit in both juice and pureed form

is why they can account for two of your five-a-day.

And PepsiCo, which makes both Tropicana and Naked juices, told us

that its products too are named with the dominant fruit flavours in mind.

It said very strong or sour flavoured fruits,

like the cranberries used in its Red Machine drink, don't give

the right flavour or consistency when used in high quantities.

Instead they're blended with softer flavours.

So, Dave Moore from Cambridge,

there's no need for your smoothie to leave a bitter

taste in the mouth, and hopefully,

knowing that the cheaper fruit has to be there

alongside those more expensive flavours

will make the price a little bit easier to swallow.

After spending decades in the culinary

and nutritional wilderness,

copping the blame for everything from heart disease to

high cholesterol, many people are delighted to say that butter

is back on the menu.

And being honest, in our house it never really went away.

But when is butter not quite butter?

That's the question one viewer asked after noticing what

he thought was the real deal was actually nothing of the kind.

And he wanted to find out why.

Ah, butter.

It's natural, tastes great, and for generations,

was a staple of every family kitchen.

From our morning toast to our tea-time cakes...

Here you are. It's butter too. Real butter.

Mm. Wonderful.

Only butter tastes like butter.

But as the health-conscious 1980s dawned,

but went firmly out of fashion.

As the saturated fat it contained was linked to heart disease.

For years we had a love affair.

Then we found out the butter we loved had cholesterol.

We were all told that not only was modern margarine

better for us, but it would spread straight from the fridge as well.

But over the years,

butter has battled its way back into our hearts.

And in 2015, the original warnings made about it were found

to have been based on flawed data.

Therefore cementing its place in our hearts once and for all.

And by now, a range of new products sought to prove that you could

still get that buttery taste and spread it straight from the fridge.

They look like butter. Their names sound like they are butter.

But they are not.

Rip-Off Britain viewer John Lomax from Preston wasn't happy

when he realised that that was the case with the one that he'd bought.

I thought, "Oh, butter."

But when I looked at the list of ingredients

I found that it only has about 20% butter content.

And that shocked me.

Although John had assumed from the name it was butter,

Tesco's Butterpak only contains 26% of butter.

The rest is mainly oils and water.

I thought that they couldn't do that.

They are pulling the wool over our eyes.

In fact, Tesco isn't pulling the wool over anybody's eyes.

The store didn't comment on John's concern but its Butterpak is

clearly labelled as a spread and not as a butter.

And spreads don't need to contain as much butter as the real thing.

The law says that true butter

has to contain between 80% and 90% milk fat.

So when it comes to buying spreads or butter, always check the label

as spreads only usually contain butter as one of the ingredients.

But when you have spreads being produced by some of the best-known

butter manufacturers, often under the same name

and with their buttery taste being the main selling point,

it's easy for the shopper to get very confused.

So would you know how much butter

some of the best known spreads contain?

Let's have a bit of a guessing game then.

Here we have Anchor.

Which is a very popular-selling one.

-I'd say 80%.

-80%.

-54%.

-Is it?

-54.

And this one?

-60.

-26.

-My goodness!

-I use that one.

-You do? OK, you like the taste?

I like proper butter.

Would you be surprised then to know that only 64% of butter?

..butter, is it? Yeah.

I knew it wasn't all butter because when you get the blocks,

-you can't spread them in winter.

-No, it's true.

-Mm.

What do you think that one would be?

-Butter.

-Butter.

-Mostly butter.

-Mostly butter? OK.

-In actual fact, it's only 33%.

-Oh, right.

-So are you surprised at that?

-Yes, I am.

-Yeah.

We contacted some of the brand leaders

in the world of buttery spreads.

Arla Foods, which makes the spreadable versions of Lurpak

and Anchor, told us that its packs are clearly labelled and are...

And the makers of Clover and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter both

said that their products are lower in saturated fat than butter

while maintaining a buttery taste.

While their butter content clearly varies, John wants to find out how

else these spreads differ from both the real thing and indeed margarine.

So we've brought him to Huddersfield University

to meet research scientist Dr Laura Waters.

So, butter is a really simple product.

It's literally just butterfat and water.

It's as simple as you can get.

If you go to the margarines, they would be vegetable oil based.

And the spreads, they would tend to be oil and butter mixtures.

They would have a lot less butter in them.

How can you make butter more spreadable?

You can make your own spreadable butter.

The way that industry does it is it adds in oils.

It will add in some water.

And because of that, it will also add other ingredients as well.

So it'd need to add some emulsifier,

which keeps the oil and water mixed together.

Industry may also add things such as preservatives,

to extend the shelf-life,

colourings and flavourings.

-Would you like me to show you how to make spreadable butter?

-Yes, please.

If you're going for the, say, 60% butter option,

obviously it's going to be 60% butter and 40% oil.

So, we have 60g of butter in there.

To this we're going to add 40 of oil.

And you simply mix the two together.

Now, it may look at this stage like liquid rather than a solid.

Once you've cooled this down in the fridge,

then it will return to a more butter-like consistency

that you might expect.

Dr Waters is making up two different types of spreadable butter

for us to put to the test.

One was 60% butter, similar to some of the brand-leading spreadables.

And one with 25%, around the same amount as the Butterpak

that John bought.

And we're going to see how they fare

in one of the toughest tests of all - baking a cake.

We've set up our own buttery bake-off

and we've asked these enthusiastic bakers from Huddersfield

to create their meanest Victoria sponge.

Each will use one of four different ingredients.

The two spreads Dr Waters has just made, a real butter,

and a margarine.

Now, our bakers have no idea which they've been given.

But Irene here is cooking with full butter.

It feels like the butter I use actually when I'm baking at home.

Megan is using a simple baking spread,

an off-the-shelf margarine that contains no pure butter whatsoever.

Kaye has Dr Waters' 60% butter spread.

And Lucy has Dr Waters' 25% butter spread.

It's a lot easier to whisk than theirs

so I've got that going for it.

So, ingredients beaten, battered, baked, cooled and decorated.

It's time to add some real heat for our bakers

as these discerning staff and students arrive

to judge their culinary creations.

It's a funny consistency, isn't it?

There's something about the sponge that just doesn't sit right.

Needs a bit more sugar.

I think it needs to be sweeter.

So, question is, which spread came out best in our test?

Most popular with our volunteers was the one made with margarine.

Five of them went for that one.

Two preferred the taste of the cake

made with Dr Waters' 60% butter spread.

And one plumped for the one made with 25% butter.

But none of them chose the cake made with pure butter.

I'm quite surprised this was made with 25% butter spread.

I'd consider using it myself.

The sponge was very nice. I thought it was perfect, in my opinion.

I'm not surprised it's made from margarine.

-Yeah.

-I agree, yeah.

So there you go. Top marks for margarine on the baking.

But all of this still leaves John with one crucial question.

We've been hearing over the past few years that butter's

good for you, butter's not good for you,

margarine is good for you, and margarine isn't.

Which is good, which is bad?

There are lots of studies which seem to say that the saturated fat,

so things such as the butter, they're not so good for you.

They can cause cardiovascular disease,

they can cause types of cancer, that sort of thing.

However, there are also lots of other studies

on the unsaturated fats,

so that's the oil-based products,

which say they're not so good for you either.

This is especially true if you're cooking with one of these products.

So, because there are studies for both sides,

I would say just keep it in moderation,

go for the one you prefer, and if you don't have too much

of either of them, then you should be fine.

But for John, there's no doubt which one he prefers.

Butter.

The taste is so much better.

I know it's personal preference

but at least I know what has gone into the product.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain...

Why the rules that protect a Cornish pasty

could put this cheese-maker out of business.

It is very frustrating.

It can happen just like that,

and it's totally out of your control.

So...so, it's a difficult thing to get used to.

Now, there are some products where the difference between

the cheapest and the most expensive on the supermarket shelves

can be explained purely by the quality of the ingredients.

In other words, you're getting what you pay for.

But we've been contacted by one viewer who wanted to know when that

explanation still stands for the staple of her diet, which is honey.

Now, the priciest jars can cost as much as ten times more

than the most affordable.

So how much do they actually vary in quality?

Should you stick with the cheaper pots?

Or is it actually worth paying just that little bit extra?

British shoppers now spend more on honey than on jam.

A whopping £119 million last year.

And it's a trend which some people put down to

people switching from using sugar.

Which is certainly what Rip-Off Britain viewer

Yvonne Sayer has done.

But Yvonne wrote to us wondering why there is such a huge price gap

between the cheapest and the most expensive varieties on sale.

I want to know, what is the difference between £1 jar

of honey and a more expensive jar of £15 and even more?

The cheapest honey on sale in British supermarkets

typically sells for around £1.

Then there is the mid-range of honeys costing between £2 and £4.

And at the top end,

specialist honeys, like Manuka, can sell for up to £100 a jar.

So what is the difference?

Well, to help answer Yvonne's question, I've come to meet

David Wainwright, President of the National Bee Farmers Association,

at his farm in Aberystwyth.

-Hi, David.

-Hello.

-Nice to see you.

-Nice to meet you.

So are we going to go out and see your hives, are we?

David's farm yields about 25 tonnes of honey a year.

This might sound like a lot, but actually,

British bees are only producing a fraction of all

the honey that we consume in this country every year.

It's other countries like China, Russia, Argentina, Mexico

who are the big honey producers.

But David says he prefers the taste of British honey.

We produce a lot of different varieties.

And all these varieties of honey have got a unique flavour

and characteristics to them.

Because they are produced from a different plant

and that plant contributes slightly different flavours

and sugars to the nectar which the bees make the honey out of.

To show me just how varied honey flavours can be, David is

putting my taste buds to the test with four very different types.

We've got English, French, Ethiopian and Welsh.

This is the English one.

That's from Salisbury Plain.

-And that's got a cinnamon type of flavour to it.

-Mm!

-This is the French one.

-That's French lavender

which comes from the lavender fields in the South of France.

A bit earthy, actually.

Ethiopian.

This is from the rainforest in the south-west of Ethiopia.

-Mm-hm.

-It comes from a large forest tree.

-It's quite sort of sweet and light.

-Yeah.

-Yeah.

And this one is the Welsh one.

-This is the Welsh one, gathered from hives around here.

-Right.

So this is from blackberry, willow herb, clover.

Mm!

Oh, yes!

-I can taste the flowers.

-Yeah.

Much like fine wine, it's these rich regional variations that give

pure honey its distinctive taste.

Which stands it apart

from the cheaper, processed jars in the supermarket.

These mass produced jars contain a mix of honeys

blended together from different sources.

To show just how that affects the taste,

David has blended together the pure honeys that I just tasted.

What happens if we mix these four different types with

all their individual flavours?

What happens if we mix them all together?

Do the flavours sort of counteract one another

or can you still taste them?

What else comes out? Yeah.

And it quickly becomes clear that

all those subtleties in taste have gone.

Replaced instead by a perfectly pleasant

but much more middle-of-the-road flavour.

It's sweet.

I can't any longer taste that distinctive floral that

I got from the Welsh or the lavender that I got from the French one.

It's very pleasant.

But it doesn't have a distinctive taste

-as they did when they were separate.

-Yes.

And of course, that's what's happening with the cheaper

-varieties of honey, isn't it?

-Yes.

You are not going for a specific flavour, you are just going

for honey, but not one that you can distinguish from anything else.

That's right. That's exactly it, yeah.

I think you've invented a new honey, David.

HE LAUGHS

The increase in sales of honey has been linked to consumers

wanting to replace sugar in their diet.

Like Rip-Off Britain viewer Yvonne.

But she wants to know, was she right to switch?

I changed from sugar to honey

thinking it was better for me. Is it?

Yvonne says she buys three jars of honey a month

and uses it in place of sugar.

Normally spending about £1.50 on a jar

that would typically last between one and two weeks.

She wants to know whether that's money well spent

and whether it really is better for her than plain old sugar.

To find out, we brought Yvonne to meet nutritionist Ian Marber.

I wanted to know the nutritional value,

the difference between sugar and honey.

Yvonne began to replace the sugar in her diet with honey

nine months ago after years of ill health.

I always associate it with the idea of the monks in the olden days

using it for medicinal purposes, that it's good for you.

A lot of people use honey in favour of sugar

because they think it's a lot better.

Honey does have some nutritional value to it

but it's not as great as people tend to think.

-You might put it in some tea, for instance.

-Yeah.

-So you put like a tablespoon in or a teaspoon?

-Oh, no. No, no.

-A teaspoon.

-A teaspoon is very interesting because that teaspoon,

which is that amount, is actually going to have 10g of sugar in it.

Which is actually the same amount of sugar that you're going to find

in four squares of milk chocolate.

And Ian reckons that honey's reputation for being

rich in vitamins and minerals is also a bit of a myth.

This is a tablespoon of honey, 21g.

And in that you've only actually got 1.3mg,

not grams, 1.3mg of calcium.

-OK? So it's not a huge amount of minerals in there.

-No.

To give you an example,

there is 210mg of calcium in an ounce of Cheddar.

Some of the expensive honeys will have more vitamins

and more minerals in them.

But because there is a halo of health around foods like honey,

we are likely to eat more in one go.

We actually tend to use more of it because we think it's better for us.

The problem is that it's still rich in sugars.

A different type of sugars that are processed very slightly differently.

But the truth is, though, once it's past your mouth

and past your stomach and it's in your intestines, it's not

treated any differently than sugar that might be in milk chocolate.

Ian's advice for Yvonne isn't simply to swap one

kind of sugar for another, as she has effectively done by switching

to honey, but to reduce her taste for sweet foods altogether.

So less is more?

Absolutely.

I think that's the key, getting used to food that's less sweet.

So there is no need for Yvonne to turn her back on honey altogether.

But armed with Ian's advice, she's planning to change

the way that she sweetens her food in the future.

I'm really surprised about the little difference

between processed white sugar and honey.

I'm certainly going to use less.

I'm certainly not going to pay the very, very expensive.

I'm going to be very careful, but cut down.

Sales of supermarkets' own-brand products now account for over

half of all the food they sell.

But while fans of the more expensive brands insist that they give

you a better quality and taste, chef Mark Lloyd, who has

worked in some of the world's top restaurants, doesn't agree.

I think we have a little bit of an obsession with brands.

I think it's maybe because our parents bought them

and we always saw them growing up.

Mark's confident that if you make two versions of the same dish,

one with ingredients from the best-known big-names

and the other with cheap and cheerful supermarket own-brands,

you won't be able to guess which is which.

I really don't think you can tell the difference between premium

and economy ingredients once they are blended together.

And I'm so sure of this I'm going to prove it.

We asked Mark to make a simple spaghetti bolognese for four.

It's basically mince, pasta, tomatoes,

some herbs and a sprinkling of cheese.

He's been out to buy the ingredients twice.

One set of ingredients is from the branded range,

all the brands that you know and love in the supermarkets.

The other is from their own range,

their kind of budget or their own labelled range.

The ingredients for our spag bol from the bigger brands cost £5.49.

But the supermarket's own-brand versions added up to just £2.49.

That's a 50% saving.

So let's get cooking.

OK, there are a few things that you shouldn't really scrimp on,

that are worth spending a few extra pennies on.

Whole pieces of meat.

Roasting joints, whole chickens, things like that.

Fresh fish, vegetables

and fruit are always worth spending a little few extra pennies on.

But things like your tinned goods and jars of things,

things like tomato puree are worth shopping around for

and getting the best deal on.

Well, I think that's going to be a tough one to pick.

So the two versions are ready and on standby are three of Mark's staff

who reckon they know their bland from their brand.

Dish one is the cheaper version.

And dish two is the branded one.

Waitress Danielle goes straight to the expensive dish.

And then it's waiter John's turn to see

if he can spot the difference.

And now the Italian. Making pasta for an Italian.

Yeah, nothing should get past the chef Mateo.

But let's see which dish the three of them prefer.

So which one do you think's got the most expensive ingredients in?

-Number two.

-So number two.

-You think?

-I think this one.

-You think number one.

-Yeah.

-Matty, split decision.

-One.

-Number one?

-Yep.

I can tell you that that was the most expensive ingredients.

That was the cheaper ingredients.

So you picked the more expensive and you guys picked the cheaper one.

Now, that's hardly a scientific test.

But considering two out of the three went for the cheaper dish,

maybe it's true that when it comes to brands versus own-labels,

paying less doesn't mean you will end up scrimping on flavour too.

I think that just goes to show you can create amazing food with

non-branded ingredients.

Try and go out there and find yourself a bargain.

Meanwhile, I'm off to finish this. Thanks.

2016 has been officially designated by the Government

as the year of British food,

celebrating the best in British produce right across the UK.

As part of that, there is a push to award more regional foods

the protected status that guarantees they've been

made in the places that you'd think they had.

It's a way of heralding local specialities.

And it can really benefit businesses in the area

that win such recognition.

But, you know, there is another side to the coin.

And as you'll see, there are British businesses

for whom that is not such a good idea.

Wensleydale cheese from Wensleydale.

Melton Mowbray pork pies from Melton Mowbray.

And traditional Cumberland sausage from...

Well, you've got the picture.

All part and parcel of our food heritage.

And to some people, that's worth a lot.

I think buying British is important.

We should support local producers and local suppliers

rather than importing the food that we grow in this country.

I just think it's better to buy local.

I mean, if I can support the local farmers or whatever,

that's what I like to do.

I think it supports our economy.

And not only that, I think the food is better.

You know where the quality is coming from.

So I do prefer buying British, yeah.

Some of the best of this British food has been able to obtain

what's called geographically protected status.

That means, under EU law, it can only be sold using a particular name

if it meets certain requirements.

Most often that it's been produced in the area where that

specific product first came from, using a very particular method.

Examples of these could include a Melton Mowbray pork pie

or for many, a big favourite, the Cornish pasty.

But what about the food producers

living outside these geographical areas?

They may have been making exactly the same products for generations,

but now because of EU laws,

they will no longer be able to call them the same thing.

So why, if essentially they are the same no matter where

they are made, does it really matter where they actually come from?

That's very much the view of the dairy farmer Mark Hardy.

He's in the business of making cheese.

Not, however, one typical of West Sussex, where he farms,

but halloumi, more commonly associated with Cyprus.

So, Mark, for me

it's always fascinating to come into the hub of everything.

He's been making it for 25 years,

and he used to produce feta cheese as well

until in 2002, the European Union gave that crumbly favourite

a protected designation of origin, or a PDO for short.

It meant that to be called feta the cheese has to be made in Greece.

What was your reaction

when you heard that you couldn't call feta feta any more?

Well, I was obviously annoyed cos it's a part of our business.

But we just carried on really.

We renamed the cheese Mediterranean sheep's milk cheese -

Mediterranean-style sheep's cheese.

Cos you can't use anything that sounds like feta in feta.

We still sell quite a lot of it but it's not one of our major cheeses.

And now Mark's halloumi is under threat as well.

The UK currently represents the biggest market

for halloumi cheese in Europe.

And Mark is one of the handful of producers in this country.

But that could all change

if an application by Cyprus to restrict the use of the name

halloumi to only cheese made in that country goes through.

What's the current situation?

Currently, the EU are discussing it and working out

whether they are going to let it through or not.

It's a period of consultation and any company, such as us,

who have been making cheese,

we've all put in a written application to the EU stating

our case and why halloumi shouldn't be a protected cheese.

One of the reasons Mark has objected is that, just like feta,

halloumi isn't the name of a place but a type of cheese.

But despite that, for anyone producing halloumi outside Cyprus,

there's an added geographical spanner in the works.

And it's all to do with ingredients.

Some protected products, for example, the Cornish pasty,

can have their ingredients sourced from anywhere in the world,

as long as the product is simply assembled in Cornwall

and follows the designated set method.

But the specific type of protection Cyprus has applied for

means that the key ingredients in the cheese

would have to be from that country as well.

So no matter how authentic his method of production,

if the application is agreed, without upping sticks

and moving his farm to Cyprus and sourcing his ingredients

from there, Mark simply won't be allowed to call his cheese halloumi.

How much do you think it will affect you?

If you go to a supermarket and say,

"Buy our halloumi cheese, it's not called halloumi,"

people won't recognise it. They won't buy it.

So is it a big worry for you?

It's a worry. 25% of the cheese we make is halloumi cheese.

If we can't call it halloumi, it's bound to affect our business.

We employ 12 people here. It's bound to affect them.

Now, of course, there are many businesses in the UK

that have benefited from protected status.

Which is why so many people and the authorities

so eagerly get behind British products seeking such recognition.

And some experts are enthusiastic supporters of the scheme as well.

Because it provides an assurance of trust in a product

that has tradition behind it.

I would take the view that protective foods names,

broadly speaking, are a good thing.

They are good for the consumer because

if the consumer wants to buy a specific food

which is made in a defined place, they have the guarantee that

what they are buying is an authentic product

if it's a protected food name.

I think one of the reasons for the halloumi application

is that it unites both the Greek and Turkish aspects of Cyprus.

I mean, food often brings people together.

And in this example,

the act of actually formulating the protected food name together

is an example of two disparate sides with disparate cultures

actually collaborating for a change.

With the date for a decision unclear,

Mark remains on tenterhooks as to what it will mean for his business.

So to see what potential customers think, he has set up a stall

with his halloumi and a Cypriot one from the local supermarket

to try and find out

whether passing shoppers can tell any difference between the two.

-Would you like to try some cheese?

-Yes, please.

How bothered with people be

whether the cheese is made in Cyprus or in Sussex?

Can you taste any difference?

-This one.

-Yeah, I like that one.

-Lovely and creamy.

This is the halloumi that we make

and this one comes all the way from Cyprus.

I think the second one. To be honest, there's not a lot in that.

I mean, they are both nice. But I think I prefer the first one.

I'm the same. I think I prefer the first one.

Of the nine people who tasted both cheeses,

seven preferred Mark's halloumi.

But would they still buy it if it wasn't allowed to call itself that

and the one they didn't like as much had the rights to the name?

Would it bother you if

we weren't allowed to call our halloumi halloumi?

-No.

-Tastes good. So...

-It's about the taste, not about the names.

-Yeah.

You should call it I Can't Believe It's Not Halloumi.

MARK LAUGHS

The EU passed around 62 of these applications in 2015.

Agreeing protected status for products such as

a boiled Tuscan sausage,

a specialist veal from a region of Spain,

and purple and white asparagus from France.

But some applications didn't get this far.

Jersey butter for example was rejected as it was judged

that its character came from Jersey cows rather than the island itself.

And Lincolnshire sausages failed to get protected food name status

partly because other butchers complained

that there was no evidence

that the recipe originated in Lincolnshire.

But for Mark, until the EU makes a decision on halloumi,

the fate of a big part of his business hangs in the balance.

And from now, I'm afraid all he can do is wait.

It is very frustrating. It can happen just like that.

And it's totally out of your control.

I'd like to think they'd stick with us,

if they think it's nicer than the imported halloumi.

If you've got a story you'd like us to investigate then get in

touch with us via our Facebook page - BBC Rip Off Britain,

our website - bbc.co.uk/ripoffbritain,

or e-mail...

Or if you want to send us a letter then our address is...

Well, as we've said many times before, it's amazing what you

find out when you read the full ingredients of the products we buy.

Because when you just look at the name or

the description on the front, you can

make assumptions that may not be entirely correct, to put it mildly.

Exactly. But it's important to point out that none of the products that

we've talked about today are in any way hiding what they've got in them.

But unless you are right across the full details of all

the ingredients, it is very easy to leap to

conclusions about some of the things that we eat and drink.

And when we find out that we are wrong, well,

then it's too easy to think that perhaps we've been short changed

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

I do hope you will keep sending us your ideas

and suggestions for stories. Not just about food, by the way,

but anything at all that you spend your money on.

I promise you the team read all your letters and e-mails

and we are very grateful for every single one.

So we'll be back to answer more of your questions

and problems very soon. Until the next time we are together,

thank you very much for your company.

-From all of us, bye-bye.

-Bye-bye.

-Bye.