Episode 1 Rip Off Britain

GLORIA HUNNIFORD: 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.

ANGELA RIPPON: 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.

JULIA SOMERVILLE: 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, as ever,

we've been busy fighting your corner,

investigating the stories you've asked us to look into.

And in this particular series,

we're lifting the lid on our food to make sure that every single product

we buy delivers exactly what it says on the tin.

Now, everything we're looking into today was sparked off

by the questions and issues that you've raised with us.

And one of our reports resulted from hearing about a most jaw-dropping

side-effect from one particular food.

Sounds intriguing, doesn't it?

Well, as we take a much closer look at that particular story,

I can tell you that I found myself in a situation that I never imagined

I'd ever end up in, especially after 50 years of working in television!

So, as we uncover some of the secrets of our everyday foods,

get ready not just for some useful tips,

but also quite a few surprises as well.

Can't wait!

Coming up, I take a drugs test to see if it's really true

that eating an everyday ingredient could influence the result

in a way that jeopardises my career.

That sounds terrible. Does that mean that if I was taking a test as an

employee that my employers could say, "There's a possibility, Rippon,

"that you're a drug taker?"

And a big shock for anyone who drinks decaffeinated coffee,

or products that you might assume are totally caffeine free.

Would you have known that it still had a kick

from the caffeine you might assume you are paying extra to avoid?

They have all got caffeine in.

But it says on the front...

-I know.

-That's so bad.

-That's quite shocking.

-Have I missed something very obvious here?

On this programme, I think it's true to say that we've always been

interested in unpicking some of the unexpected truths

about the food that we eat.

But, you know, when we first heard about this next one,

it really seemed so extraordinary, well, really, we could

hardly believe it ourselves.

It's all to do with an added ingredient

that's baked in or sprinkled on top of some very common foods,

typically bread and cakes.

And it's usually considered to be rather good for us.

But we've been contacted by one viewer for whom

entirely the opposite was true.

It's no exaggeration to say that eating it

completely changed his life, and not for the better.

Toasting some nice granary or seeded bread,

packed full of healthy grain and other nutrients is, for many of us,

a great way to start the day.

And certainly there didn't seem any obvious cause for concern when Alan,

from south Wales, ate some, as he often did for his breakfast,

one morning last August before heading off for another

busy day at work.

As a field service engineer, through many companies,

I predominantly worked in south Wales, working at different sites.

Alan worked for an industrial equipment supplier,

and that particular day he was sent for a job at a power station.

When he arrived on site, as part of the standard procedure required

for contractors to enter the facility, he was asked to give

a urine sample for a drugs test.

Drugs tests are fairly common in work environments

where employees drive or use heavy machinery,

or where the job is a matter of public safety,

such as the National Grid, the mining industry

or civil engineering.

Workers can't be made to take them,

but if they refuse a reasonable request,

they can face disciplinary action.

I've had quite a few drugs tests. Usually when I start

with the company, I have a test there.

But this time, when the nurse analysed Alan's sample,

it became clear that there was a problem.

The nurse asked her colleague to come and look at it,

because she was not sure...

if it had passed or failed, because it was borderline.

She couldn't make a decision, either.

So then she asked another colleague to come in.

And the third one said, "I can't make a decision on it.

"So probably go to the safer side of saying that you'll

"not be allowed in."

Before tests of this kind are carried out,

it's standard practice for a nurse to ask what food or medication

has been consumed.

There's no record of Alan declaring his breakfast,

but he says he did tell them he'd eaten toast,

although he made no connection between this and the test results.

I told them I had brown bread this morning for breakfast, toast,

which I always have.

And then they said to me, "What did you have for lunch today?"

I said, "I had a packet of crisps and a Kit Kat."

And they then turned round to me and said, "Well, that didn't create

"a problem with the drugs,"

so they're going to have to send this sample for analysis.

Alan was sent home and, a few days later

when he was at his company depot in Wales,

he received some rather shocking news from his manager.

He said he'd had an e-mail to say that the drugs test I had failed,

because there was a class A drug in my system.

And what they found in my blood was morphine, traces of morphine.

And the bad news didn't stop there.

I was told I was suspended from work, pending investigation into it.

I felt empty.

I couldn't understand what was going on.

A standard drug screening can detect the presence of opiates,

which are drugs and medicines which are derived from opium.

Morphine is one of these drugs,

and European testing guidelines say that the upper limit that can be

present in urine is 300 nanograms per millilitre.

A morphine level of 690 nanograms was detected in Alan's test,

more than double the limit.

To get to the bottom of how that could be,

Alan was advised to find out from his doctor whether tablets

he takes for his blood pressure might contain the drug.

But he was baffled when the answer came back, no,

none of his medication could have impacted the results of the test.

I don't know in any depth about, or at that time,

about morphine or any other kind of drug, really.

I just know the name of them.

You know, somebody said cannabis, I'd know, oh, that's a nasty drug.

What it is, I don't know, really.

Same with heroin and now morphine.

Determined to find out how morphine could possibly have got

into his body, Alan went online to investigate.

And to his utter astonishment,

his research pointed to a totally unexpected possible answer -

the toast he'd had for breakfast on the day of the test.

I read that seeded bread contains traces of morphine,

because it has poppy seeds in it.

It is, of course, true that poppy seeds do contain small amounts of

opiates. And while you may think it far-fetched that eating them

could have an impact on the result of a drugs test, in fact, we've

discovered that one well-known baker, Warburtons,

has a warning about this on its website.

And, indeed, three years ago, poppy seed bread was blamed

when inmates at Brixton Prison tested positive for opiates.

As a result, products containing poppy seeds were

taken off the menu of the prison canteen.

The explanation is that even when the seeds are washed and processed,

traces of opiates still remain.

And it's these traces that Alan is convinced must have impacted

his test results.

Poppy seeds, it's an ingredient.

It's not...

something that you would suspect would be involved

in any kind of drug.

Well, problems related to workplace drug testing are very much

on the radar of Dan Shears from workers' union GMB.

He believes that companies need to have a rethink about

what happens when a worker's result is positive.

The problem is not that the tests in itself are inaccurate.

They're usually very reliable.

There may be no, you know, wrongdoing

on that individual's part,

it's simply what they've had for lunch.

So, what are the employees rights in a situation like that?

Well, they are fairly limited.

It depends very much on what the contract of employment says.

But, as I say, there is really no legislation around this

in terms of actual testing process.

There's very little, realistically, that somebody can do.

Alan says he had tried explaining what he'd discovered

about poppy seed consumption, but as his sample failed a second test,

his suspension from work turned to dismissal.

When we got in touch with Alan's former employer,

while it wouldn't comment directly on his individual case,

it told us it has...

..adding that it has duty of care to its staff,

customers and the public to implement this policy.

But Alan feels he's been treated unfairly and he still

can't quite believe how it all happened.

I've never been out of work.

You feel demoralised, you feel as if you have no worth, I suppose.

And, at the end of the day, I've looked back at it and I'm thinking,

"All this has happened because I've eaten toast."

"I just can't believe that."

Well, later in the programme,

you can see what happened when I ate some poppy seed bread

and went through the same kind of test as Alan.

So, what's the result of my test?

Still to come on Rip Off Britain, one of your biggest food bugbears.

Why are some of your best loved products shrinking before your eyes?

When I put the carton in the fridge,

I realised there was something wrong with the size.

And I hadn't even opened it yet.

Now, being Irish, I'm afraid I'm a bit of a tea fanatic.

But I know that lots of you just can't start your day

without that good old cup of coffee.

You enjoy the boost it gives you day-to-day and,

I suppose, I should be more precise and say it's the caffeine.

Now, many of you like to keep a closer eye on how much of it

you're having. And the manufacturers have certainly stepped up

when it comes to helping with that. Every supermarket and coffee shop

now offers an array of decaffeinated products.

Yet we've heard from one viewer who had a bit of a nasty surprise after

drinking her decaf.

So, brace yourself, because chances are, when you hear why,

you'll be just as surprised as she was.

There's no denying we've become a nation of coffee lovers.

Every day we sup a staggering 55 million cups of the stuff.

But we don't all like the kick that comes from caffeine,

so those wanting to steer clear of stimulants will usually

turn to decaf.

Most tea and coffee brands now offered decaffeinated alternatives.

Some claim that you can enjoy a "caffeine free cuppa."

Others say they give you "the perfect cup of coffee,

"but without the caffeine kick."

However, for one Rip Off Britain viewer,

I'm afraid switching to decaf didn't have quite the benefit

she hoped it would. And I would take a bet that lots of you

have been caught out in the same way, too.

Former prison officer, Kath Hilderley from Peterborough

was left with a heart condition after an injury

she suffered at work some ten years ago.

It puts your heart under pressure,

running up the stairs and things that you take for granted.

It's not the same any more.

You have to stop and think, but it does affect your daily living.

To help her relax, Cath enjoys a cup of coffee.

In fact, she drinks up to six a day.

And as part of her ongoing treatment,

Kath was called to hospital for a heart scan and she was told to avoid

caffeine for 24 hours beforehand.

So, you go and you buy decaf coffee, decaf tea, whatever is your choice,

then I should be OK to go and have the treatments.

When I got to the hospital, one of the nurses said,

"Right, what have you eaten for the last 24 hours?"

I said, "Decaf coffee," and that's when she said,

"There's caffeine in decaf coffee.

"You cannot have the scan."

Kath was astonished.

As far as she was aware, by drinking decaf, she had avoided all caffeine,

but the nurse was adamant that there was caffeine in her system,

so her scan had to be cancelled.

I was angry.

I was upset because I thought by having decaf coffee was no caffeine.

I thought that was the right thing to do.

You may well have assumed the same, but, in fact,

decaf coffee does still contain caffeine.

And when we got in touch with the hospital,

it told us that it does make this clear to patients like Kath...

..sending out a leaflet advising that not only should

they avoid caffeinated drinks before procedure, but decaf ones as well.

But Kath says she didn't receive this information.

Although unable to put a figure on it,

the British Heart Foundation confirmed to us

that cancellations caused by caffeine consumption

are a frequent occurrence on hospital wards.

But Kath simply hadn't realised that decaf doesn't mean a product that is

totally caffeine free.

And adding to her irritation over that is the fact

that decaf products can cost up to £1 more than regular coffee.

What annoys me the most is,

these companies can go along and put decaffeinated on anything,

and a person that's health-conscious can actually buy all decaf products,

thinking, like I did,

"Decaffeinated, that's better for me."

They can put £1,

50 pence and all them 50ps and the pounds add up,

and it's a rip-off, at the end of the day.

Upset by her experience, Kath got in touch with Kenco,

asking why its decaf coffee has no mention of its caffeine content

on the label.

The company replied, confirming that the product does contain caffeine,

but only a small amount.

0.3 mg of it, compared to 65 mg

that you'd expect to find in a regular cup of coffee.

I'm sure like many of you,

I didn't realise that when something says decaf, or decaffeinated,

that actually there still can be some caffeine in the product.

Even the word decaffeinated, to me,

makes it sounds like everything has been removed.

So, we've come to this cafe in Reading to see

if customers and staff here know which drinks contain caffeine.

In front of them is a range of products that either claim to be

decaffeinated or that you might assume are totally caffeine free.

But is that right?

Let's see if they can spot which ones do and don't contain

that caffeine stimulant.

Right.

-Put them on the other side.

-Well, green tea has caffeine.

Pure green tea, as they say, yes, OK.

-I'm going to go decaf.

-OK, OK. Do you drink decaf?

-No!

-No, OK.

I need caffeine, I think.

Decaf.

Hmm, this might be a trick one.

-I love hot chocolate.

-I like hot chocolate, too.

Chocolate's not going to have caffeine in it, surely.

OK, right.

-There's another decaf, so I'm going to put it there, decaf.

-OK.

Decaf.

-I feel like I want to put everything over here.

-Put them all there.

Yeah, that's fine, you can do whatever you want.

I'll go...

OK.

I'm just going to say caffeine free.

-Caffeine free.

-Caff free...

Caff free. So I suppose it says that, so I shall put it there.

Now they've made their choices, it's time to reveal the truth.

I'm going to have to put that one over there.

-Really?

-I'm going to have to put that one over there.

I'm going to have to put this one over there, the chocolate.

I'm going to have to put this over there and I'm going

to have to put the tea bags over there.

-Really?

-They have all got caffeine.

That's so bad!

They are all, all of them should be this side.

How about that?

Yeah, that's quite shocking.

I thought I would be buying something that said what it

did on the tin.

They have all got caffeine.

-But it says on the front...

-I know.

..decaf? Have I missed something very obvious here?

No, so you think that's misleading when you see that on the front?

Incredibly misleading.

Our simple test has confirmed that to many of us, decaf means no caff.

Well, I'm very keen to find out why 100% of caffeine can't be extracted

from these products.

It certainly would save a lot of confusion.

So, I've come to the University of Reading to see first-hand

the decaffeination process.

Dr Afroditi Chatzifragkou is a lecturer in food processing.

So, we have our coffee beans inside here.

She's using a combination of heat,

pressure and CO2 gas to penetrate the beans and extract the caffeine.

This is the collection vessel.

So, is this where the caffeine comes out?

-Exactly.

-Yes.

'She's going to show me one of three ways that manufacturers

'typically remove caffeine from coffee beans.'

So, our beans will be left behind intact and ready then to be further

processed, so roasted and...

either packed or become an instant coffee.

I see. Let's go for it. Let's see it.

-Let's go for it, let's see then. Moment of truth.

-Yes.

Oh, it's clearer than I thought.

It's like a very dark white wine.

'Now that the coffee beans have been through the decaffeination process,

'Dr Afroditi's going to test them to see

'how much caffeine remains.'

We can see here, we were able to extract most of the caffeine

out of our beans.

So you're happy with that result?

Yes, I'm happy, but this means we have taken out more

than 98% of caffeine.

I would say it's very, very difficult to extract all

of the caffeine out.

'Well, it seems it's never going to be possible to remove

'all the caffeine from coffee beans because of their complex make-up.

'So, if there's always going to be a little bit of caffeine left

'in decaf coffee, where does that leave my beloved tea?'

We did some tests on decaffeinated tea products and we actually came to

discover that there were some levels of caffeine left behind,

-as you can see here.

-What percentage did you get out from the tea?

This would be an equivalent of 0.1% left behind.

In health terms, everybody talks about green tea.

Green tea is a source of caffeine itself,

so nearly half of the caffeine that you will find in coffee.

'I can honestly say I'm really surprised with what

'I'm finding out today.

'Admittedly, we're not talking about huge amounts of caffeine,

'but it's there nonetheless.'

So, what are the regulations?

Well, if a product has been through the decaffeination process,

leaving less than 0.3% caffeine, it must say that it's decaffeinated.

This information must be on the label, but it's often

in the small print that many of us miss, like on this one

that actually says it's "caff free."

As for hot chocolate, there's no need to declare caffeine

unless it's been added as an ingredient.

In our tests, we found 0.4 mg per gram.

When we asked Cadbury why it doesn't make the caffeine content

more obvious, it said...

And the owners of Kenco, JDE,

while reiterating that decaffeination doesn't remove

all caffeine, told us...

And when we asked why one of its products is called "caff free,"

when in fact it isn't, the company told us that

while it complies with European legislation,

by making clear in a number of places that this is

a decaffeinated product, it has now replaced the term "caff free"

with decaf on its packaging as part of a rebrand.

But marketing expert David Duke thinks the industry

could be making things much clearer.

We have the complicated situation that of course,

when marketing these types of products,

manufacturers and marketing brand leaders want to actually create the

impression that this is something special,

but creating that impression might mislead

and so something like "caff-free"

is an alternative way of trying to describe a decaffeinated product,

but of course, I would regard something that says caff-free as being

perhaps significantly more likely to be absolutely 0% and therefore if it

does contain caffeine, if it says caff-free, yes,

I would regard that as misleading.

As for Kath, she remains frustrated that decaffeinated products are not

what she'd imagined them to be.

And she'd like to see the labelling improved.

What I'd like to see is the packaging marked clearer.

Decaf just along the label isn't enough, in my opinion.

It should be marked, "Less caffeine than a normal cup," and I think then,

you're not going to have any problems because people will probably still

buy decaf and then they'll actually have a knowledge of how much

caffeine is in this.

Now, have you noticed that, when you buy something in the shops,

you seem to be getting less for your money than before?

Well, judging by the number of e-mails we've been getting from you,

the subject of food shrinkage is high on your agenda,

especially when it comes to the size of some of your most popular products.

One viewer is particularly disgruntled by the shrinking size

of one of his favourite treats,

and he's simply not buying the explanation he's been given.

Norman Brodie is a retired accountant who lives on a fixed,

limited budget.

So he likes to keep a very keen eye on every penny he spends.

I'm quite a discerning shopper.

I look for the deals that are on and,

if I find other shop's got a better deal, I'll go to another shop.

So I'm quite a fussy shopper, you might say.

But, like many of us, he has certain products that he buys every week,

and orange juice is one of them.

When I put the carton in the fridge,

I realised there was something wrong with the size,

and I hadn't even opened it yet.

So I took it back out of the fridge and found it was a smaller size,

and I was puzzled because, when I was in the supermarket,

where I bought it, there was no mention of the smaller size.

The juice Norman bought was made by Tropicana,

which shrank its cartons in February this year.

The new slimlined version holds 150ml less juice,

the equivalent of one whole serving.

But when he checked his receipt, Norman discovered to his dismay

that although the orange juice carton had shrunk,

the price had not.

I have felt cheated, first of all.

I felt I'd been paying the same money for a product I'd bought

for years and yet, suddenly, I was buying less of the product.

There is no information, no knowledge and no indication

in the shop that this was a smaller-sized product.

Norman felt so strongly that he took his complaint direct to Tropicana,

and the company replied with a list of reasons for the product's

reduction in size.

After three or four days,

a customer relations manager sent me an e-mail noting my complaint

and justifying it as best he could why he felt the price has stayed

the same but the quantity gone down.

But he didn't really answer my question because what he was saying was,

they were trying to establish that maybe the packaging cost more,

maybe the raw materials cost more, maybe there's currency and so on.

But I felt this was all a cover-up, you might say,

for trying to pull the wool over the consumer's eye.

In its response to Norman,

Tropicana pointed to three key factors it said had an impact

on the price and size of its product.

First the weather, as it affects the size of the crops.

The exchange rates, which are influenced by the global markets.

And, finally, the cost of raw materials used to make

the cartons themselves.

Like Norman, we are keen to find out if all these reasons add up

or if they are just clever manufacturer's spin

to boost profits.

Of course, Norman's orange juice isn't the first product that's been

slimmed down on our supermarket shelves.

There was an uproar last year when Toblerone made the gap

between its triangles bigger.

It's still a row of triangular blocks but, as you can see,

the new bar has much thinner blocks with very large gaps in between.

Other products, particularly chocolates,

are frequently said to have fallen victim to what's often called

"shrinkflation", a fact that hasn't gone unnoticed by many of you.

You buy food with your eyes, don't you?

If it looks good, you buy it.

Until you open the box.

Chocolate, confectionery.

They definitely don't seem to be as big as they were sort of five, six,

seven, ten years ago, maybe.

It's all package and nothing in them.

I do feel that products are getting smaller.

However, you're still paying the same amount of money.

Richard Headland is the editor of the consumer magazine Which.

Its research discovered that,

however a manufacturer justifies the changes in the size of its product,

it's rarely good news for consumers.

The reason that shrinking products are so controversial is often the

product will shrink in size but there is no corresponding price drop

and, in fact, in some cases, the price either stays the same or it increases.

So it's definitely poorer value for consumers in their weekly shop.

You've got to be really eagle-eyed to spot the products

that are sticking to the same price point

but actually the pack size is getting smaller.

Yes, you heard him correctly.

Which found that some products had not only got smaller,

but more expensive, too.

So we found a multipack of Quavers, for example,

where the number of packets of crisps within it had dropped from 14 to 12,

which is a 14% reduction.

But interestingly, with this one, the price that was being charged

by the supermarkets had actually gone up,

so it was a double whammy for consumers -

less product, costing them more money.

We found a 300g packet of McVities dark chocolate digestives where the

number of biscuits in the pack had dropped by 10% but, actually,

the price had stayed the same at some supermarkets and increased by 10p in others.

So, again, bad news for consumers -

fewer chocolate biscuits, higher prices.

Food brands and manufacturers don't set the exact price we pay

for their products - that's the job of the retailer.

But they do recommend a price.

While McVities made no comment to us about the pricing of its biscuits,

the makers of that Quavers multipack say that, when the size was reduced,

they also recommended that the price should come down, too -

something that stores didn't always follow.

Richard understands why customers find this issue so frustrating.

What we would really like to see and what we would expect to see from

brands and retailers is a genuine,

honest price rise as opposed to a sneaky price rise,

which is what they experience when products shrink and the prices don't.

So, in the quest for honest answers,

we've sent Norman to one of the UK's packaging companies to explore

further what he's been told causes shrinkflation.

The team here produce food packaging for major supermarkets and fast food

outlets across the UK.

Kay Culley is the operations manager.

I see a lot of packaging here.

Where is it all sourced from, locally or internationally?

We do a mix of both.

Our main material that we use on the majority of our packaging

comes from abroad in terms of Europe and also internationally,

so we get a lot from Egypt, India, from Europe,

we get from Spain and from Portugal,

but we do do some UK sourcing as well.

Over the last few years,

have you found that the price you're paying has been consistent?

It's been fairly consistent.

We have had some peaks and troughs, as anybody would expect,

but on the main, over the last five years, it's been exactly the same.

And does that mean that, when you invoice your customers in the UK,

you haven't had to increase or make a surcharge of any significant

amount over the last year or two?

No, we've not done any passing on of any increases,

knowing that the market's going to even itself out.

So, just as Tropicana told Norman,

the cost of raw materials does fluctuate,

but this packaging company manages to avoid passing costs on

to its customers.

Another reason the company gave Norman for the reduction in the size

of his breakfast juice was the weather.

As we've discussed on this series before,

the weather can have a huge impact on the food we eat.

When Spain was hit by the worst downpours in over 30 years in February,

there was a shortage of lettuce and courgettes across Europe,

and droughts in Brazil and Kenya led to a smaller coffee harvest

that forced producers to put their prices up.

What about the other justification Tropicana offered for the shrinking

of Norman's orange juice - the financial markets?

Adam Leyland, editor of The Grocer, feels that's fair.

Am I convinced by the reasons that brands give for shrinkflation?

The short answer is...yes.

They are not charities, they want to keep making money and, actually,

they are struggling.

Suppliers have been struggling for several years and their margins

are at their lowest in the 30 years of The Grocer's survey.

In terms of how prices are set,

it really is in the control of the retailers,

the supermarkets and so forth.

That's because a brand will sell it for a certain price.

You have the selling price and you have the cost price and, clearly,

there's a lot of negotiation that goes on in between.

So, if the power to set prices rests ultimately with the retailers,

could they be doing more to protect us against future price rises?

The crucial thing that's going on right now with Brexit,

with sterling depreciating against a number of currencies, is inflation.

And supermarkets are absolutely obsessed about trying to keep prices

down right now, it's such a sensitive time.

With Brexit, price increases are almost inevitable.

A supplier will have to get a cost increase through in one way or another,

but it doesn't have to be price increases,

it can be shrinkflation.

Well, when we contacted Tropicana's owner, PepsiCo,

it reiterated what Norman had been told when he'd first complained,

that the change in carton size is down to several factors,

including fluctuating foreign exchange rates which affect the price of oranges,

and packaging materials as well as supply pressures

due to yield and weather.

It went on to say its products are...

..and stressed that it doesn't set the retail price of its products.

That's down to individual retailers.

But with product prices and sizes likely to stay under pressure,

there is some homework we should all do before simply putting foods

in our basket.

My advice to consumers - first, always read the label.

Second, look out for a bargain, and third, remember that you can shop around

with the internet, on your phone, you can actually be in

one person's shop and checking the price in another shop.

There is a great amount of empowerment the consumer actually has.

And Norman, along no doubt with the other people who've contacted us on

this topic, says he'll be using that power to change his shopping habits

from now on.

I've noticed in shops, without actually paying attention to them,

there are other products giving good value and a good price,

and I will now support these products and buy them instead

of the one I used to buy because there's no shortage of competition

in this field at all.

Earlier in the programme, we heard from Alan,

an engineer from South Wales,

who failed a drugs test at work and is absolutely confident that he did so

because he ate bread containing poppy seeds.

Well, I've been knocking back a few of those seeds, too,

and all in the name of science, of course, I went for my own drug test.

After his drugs test,

Alan put the result down to eating bread containing poppy seeds.

I'm thinking, all this has happened because I've eaten toast.

-You just can't believe that.

-And it really is the case that,

because poppy seeds contain a small amount of opiates,

eating them can cause you to get a positive result in a drugs test.

But I wanted to test out the theory for myself.

Now, I can promise you that, throughout my working life,

I have never taken anything stronger than an over-the-counter painkiller.

I mean, let's face it, I don't even smoke!

But as a journalist,

it's really important to me that I research my stories properly and,

where this one is concerned, that means just one thing.

Yes, over three days,

I ate a whole loaf of 400g bread laden with poppy seeds

along with a poppy seed bagel bought fresh from my local bakery.

I then did a quick urine sample and sent it off to a lab for analysis

to see if, like Alan, I would test positive for morphine,

which is derived from opium.

And, while I wait to hear the results,

I'm keen to know more about workplace drug testing.

So I've come to this company, Hargreaves Logistics,

which introduced a drugs testing policy five years ago.

Have you got any form of medication on you?

Are you dependent on any drugs or alcohol at the moment?

-Nothing at all, no.

-Nothing at all.

Everyone here could potentially be subjected to a test at random,

including managing director of the haulage arm of the business,

Andrew Spence-Wolrich.

We need to weed out any potential risk right from the word go.

We have a set standard and we don't tolerate any level of drugs

or alcohol in the system at any time.

That's not just our employees, it's also our contractors.

We run hundreds of tests each year and, in the last three years,

we've only had one positive test that led to a disciplinary,

and that led to a dismissal.

And the workers seem to be all for it.

I think it's a good thing to be testing people for drugs and alcohol.

From a personal point of view,

I wouldn't want to work with somebody who was coming into work

on drugs or who was in an intoxicated state.

It would affect their work levels.

It would make working with them very, very difficult.

I was tested for drugs when I applied for a job at the company.

They took a urine sample and everything was OK.

I didn't find a problem with it.

It's your livelihood, it's your job,

you rely on it to live and survive and,

if a test showed up and you were to lose your licence,

it could be very frightening.

And it certainly was for Alan, who did, of course, lose his job.

Well, two days after I gave my sample,

I'm visiting Professor Atholl Johnston,

an expert in toxicology

at Queen Mary University for the results.

But first, I'm keen to understand exactly how what we eat can have a

bearing on the outcome of a drugs test.

If I was someone who habitually ate bread, cakes,

that had been cooked with poppy seeds in them,

would there be a build-up of that in my system?

Yes. If you liked poppy seeds and you ate poppy seeds every day in bread,

yes, it would build up and it would get to what's called a steady state

where the amount of poppy seeds or morphine you took in every day would

build up to a limit, and that would be excreted in your urine

over a 24-hour period.

Well, now it's the moment of truth.

To see what effect poppy seeds had on my sample,

Dr Johnston did a very similar test to the one that, in the end,

cost Alan his job.

I have to say, I am a little bit nervous to know what he's found.

So, Atholl, what's the result of my test?

Well, you are positive for morphine.

You excreted 13 nanograms per ml of morphine in your urine.

That sounds terrible! I mean, does that mean that if I was

taking a test as an employee that my employers could say,

"There's a possibility, Rippon, that you are a drug taker?"

If they followed the European guidance for testing of drugs

-in the workplace, no, you wouldn't be because...

-Whew!

..the limit there is 300 nanograms per ml.

So you excreted about ten times less than you would need to have a

positive test and be struck off from your workplace.

So, if my morphine levels aren't enough to cost me my job,

how could Alan's result have come out so much higher?

Well, if a result is influenced by the consumption of poppy seeds,

it all depends not just on how many you may have had but also how potent

they may be, because, I'm afraid, that can vary.

One of the things you need to consider is that poppy seeds are

a natural product, and the amount of morphine in a poppy seed will vary

quite considerably depending on when it was harvested,

where it was harvested and, in fact, when tests have been done,

there's about a 600-fold variation in the amount of morphine in poppy seeds.

-As much as that?

-From the maximum to the minimum.

That's extraordinary.

So, if you took the one that had the most opiate in it,

you would have a higher reaction?

Yes, you could get actually nearly a therapeutic dose of morphine if you

took quite a lot of bread, but you'd have to take quite a lot of bread.

But does that suggest, then, that perhaps,

while it's telling you you've got morphine,

that I've got morphine in my system,

that that is not actually an accurate assessment of what my

situation is regarding whether or not I take drugs?

No, I think that's exactly right.

You can't say, from just a test in urine,

that you are a drug abuser and you are taking morphine or heroin

for kicks, so to speak.

When you get a positive test like that,

someone needs to review that test and also review your situation,

then someone needs to ask a few questions

and perhaps repeat the test.

In Alan's case, his sample was sent

to an independent lab for a second opinion,

which confirmed the presence of opiates but,

because he didn't declare that he'd eaten poppy seeds when the sample

was taken, his theory couldn't be proven.

But the GMB's Dan Shears says,

when workers have a previously unblemished drugs test record,

that should be taken into consideration.

But isn't that the problem with this testing,

that it may not answer the most important question,

which is whether or not the person that you're testing is a habitual

user of drugs or if this is just a one-off fluke situation?

If someone is a habitual user of drugs or alcohol, for whatever reason,

you'd expect there to be a pretty clear set of signifiers beforehand,

you'd expect people to realise that behaviours had changed,

patterns at work had changed, personalities might change.

It shouldn't be the case that someone is first picked up with a test.

The test should be the last resort.

Part of the point of having a regime in place is it's supposed to act

as a deterrent, yes, but actually, if it ends up getting rid of people in the business who have done

nothing wrong, then you undermine the whole relationship you've got with your entire workforce.

And there are other foods you should declare if you go for a drugs test -

hemp seeds, tonic water and even cough syrup that contains codeine.

Since the shock result of Alan's drugs test,

he has managed to get another job, but the whole ordeal

is not something he would want anyone to have to go through.

The whole experience of it, although it's a learning curve,

is not a very nice one.

And, to prevent this, I hope people understand...

..be careful about what they eat.

Well, that's almost it from us for today.

No doubt you'll have learnt quite a few things you didn't know from the

stories we've investigated today.

I must say, we certainly did.

In particular, wasn't it a surprise to realise that decaf coffee doesn't

always mean no caff?

I'll tell you, it's certainly made quite a stir in our office!

But, you know, I can see why it is that some people think that

manufacturers could be a bit clearer about the caffeine content on their

labels because, as we said earlier in the programme,

they are not obliged to tell you about such low traces,

though it certainly would help.

I know I've got several friends who think that they are living

a caffeine-free life when it's clear now that they are not.

They are definitely not and, I have to say,

I'm still reeling from that Angela Rippon drug test which still sounds

like the most improbable tabloid headline you'll ever read!

But if you've got a food question or indeed any consumer issue that you'd

like us to get to the bottom of,

do please get in touch because we love to hear from you.

And it could be your story we investigate on a future programme.

But that's where we leave it for now, but we will see you again soon.

And from the three of us, bye-bye.

-Goodbye.

-Goodbye.