Episode 8 Rip Off Britain

-ANGELA:

-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.

JULIA: Whether you're staying in or going out,

you've told us you can feel ripped off

by the promises made about 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 then knocked it down.

-GLORIA:

-From claims that just don't stack up

to the secrets behind the packaging,

we'll uncover the truth about Britain's food,

so that you can be sure that you're getting

what you expect at the right price.

Your food, your money.

This is Rip-Off Britain.

Hello, and thank you so much for joining us again

on Rip-Off Britain

for a special series of programmes

where we're literally peeling back the labels and the packaging

to find out the secrets of the food we eat

and whether we're always getting exactly what we think we are.

-And clearly we're not, are we?

-No.

Because food scares and stories, of course, fill the newspapers

and it's sometimes just very hard to know which ones to believe.

So, on these programmes, we're going to be looking into

some of the big stories around food and drink

that have either been in the news

or that you've told us about

that you'd like us to investigate on your behalf.

And we guarantee we'll have the answers

to some of the other questions you may well have wondered about,

along with plenty of tips and advice so that when you go shopping,

you've got a much better idea of what's going into your trolley

and onto your plate.

Coming up, one man's mission to make the packaging on our foods

more upfront about what's inside.

We've redesigned some labels to see if he's right.

This is a better way to tell customers

what they're buying, what's in their product.

That's what they need to know,

and they don't need a magnifying glass to go at the back

to find out what's in.

Many thanks to all of you who wrote or e-mailed with ideas or subjects

that you wanted to investigate for this food series.

And it was one of those letters that prompted our next story,

with a question that you may well have wondered about yourself.

The average supermarket stocks

tens of thousands of different products,

and few of us have the time or the patience

to scrutinise the back of every packet

to make sure that we know exactly what we're getting.

In fact, we're said to make a decision about

whether to buy something in less than a second.

So we really do rely on the information

on the front of the packaging

to give us a proper picture of what's inside.

But Rip-Off Britain viewer Philip Clough

doesn't think that's always the case.

He wrote to us to say that he's not happy

about what he calls "poetic licence" on packets,

where the label on the front says one thing,

but you only get the full details

by wading through the small print on the back.

He thinks the key information should be big and bold on the front.

I don't understand why I've got to pick up a packet,

turn it around, get my magnifying glass out,

to actually check and see what's in that product.

I need it on the front, to say exactly what I'm getting.

And what particularly gets Philip's goat

is when he discovers that some of his favourite foods

don't contain as much of what's apparently the key ingredient

as he might have imagined.

Sharwood's chicken korma.

Magnifying glass is required.

There is, 12% is chicken.

Then we've got salmon crumble...

and it's 13% salmon.

They should put on here, in a big label, "13% salmon,"

so that we know exactly what we're buying.

What I want to see on these boxes, on these packets,

is a clear sign

saying the quantity of meat or fish in them.

Well, while Philip's obviously got a real bee in his bonnet about this,

none of these packs are breaking any of the rules or regulations,

which, in fact, set out really clearly

just what can and can't be said on the front of a packet.

Dr Richard Hyde is a product labelling and marketing expert.

The law in this area is really clear.

There's lots of very specific rules

that apply to specific products,

and they're there to make sure that you're not being mislead

by someone calling a product a particular name

when it doesn't meet those criteria.

So, if you call it a meat pie, it's got to have meat in it.

If you call it a steak and kidney pie,

it's got to have steak and kidney in it.

Your basic rule is, if it says it's got it in,

it's got to be there when you eat the food.

And that is the case with all the products

that Philip has singled out.

There might not be as much of some of the ingredients as he'd like,

but there certainly isn't any problem

as far as the rules are concerned.

Now, with some foods,

there are specified limits of what needs to be in there.

Take, for example, these pork sausages.

They contain 42% pork.

Any less and they wouldn't be allowed

to be called pork sausages at all.

But, with that amount,

they are firmly on the right side of the line.

But the required levels of meat in other products

don't always need to be so high.

For meat pies, it's got to be 12.5% meat.

Steak and kidney pie, 12.5% made up of steak or kidney.

Erm, obviously, you've got to have some steak in there,

some kidney in there,

but it's got to, in total, come to 12.5%.

Burgers are something else you might want to keep an eye on.

A beef burger has to contain 62% of beef

to be allowed to call itself that.

But an economy beef burger only has to have 47% of beef in it.

Perhaps the most surprising of all, though,

is the humble sausage roll.

Only 6% of it has to be sausage,

which leaves a lot of room for other things entirely,

stuff you may not notice

if you don't actually study the back of the pack.

Which is exactly why Philip thinks

more information should be given on the front.

So, to find out whether other people agree with him,

we've sent him out armed with some redesigned packaging

for a few everyday products.

And we'll see what the shoppers that he meets

think of how he'd like manufacturers

to list their ingredients.

This is a better way to tell customers

what they're buying, what's in their product.

That's what they need to know...

..and they don't need a magnifying glass

to go at the back to find out what's in.

These new designs are all based on foods

that Philip had in his kitchen at home,

but we've made clear on the front how the ingredients stack up.

So, with our pork sausages,

you'd know straightaway how much pork is inside.

OK, pork sausages,

42% pork.

Aha...10% pork fat.

And the meat content of the steak and kidney pie

is now right at the top.

Pie...

it's not saying steak,

because there's only 12% steak.

And the salmon crumble has a new name.

It's now a potato and salmon crumble.

Well, that's correct, because it is mainly potato...

and only 13% is pink salmon.

But will these new designs win over shoppers?

Typical packet of pork sausages,

how much meat do you expect there to be in them?

90%.

Would you be surprised that there's a lot on the market

that only have something like 40.

I am surprised.

What's the rest of the stuff in there?

If you saw this potato and salmon crumble,

how much salmon would you expect there to be?

25%?

In actual fact, you'll find 13% is only fish.

Well, that's a surprise, actually, yeah.

I thought it'd be a bit more than that.

You don't have to go looking for it on the back.

It's there, you can see it,

you can make an easy, quick, informed decision.

If it is there, then you just know what you're getting.

It's hardly a scientific test,

but Philip's more upfront labelling

certainly seems to be a hit with the people that he's met.

But when we contacted the companies behind the products

that had prompted Philip to write to us in the first place,

not all of them were so impressed.

Young's, who make the salmon crumble,

and beef hotpot manufacturer Findus

both told us they would look closely at his suggestions,

stressing that they want to...

Young's also said that it's been working on

adding more fish to its crumble.

But sausage manufacturer Richmond told us

that its sausages are already clearly labelled

with all the information that their customers need,

including a comprehensive list of ingredients

and Guideline Daily Amount labels on the front of the pack,

in line with industry standards.

Sharwood's, whose chicken korma was queried by Philip,

also said its packaging meets

all official labelling and dietary guidelines,

and pointed out that since chicken features in the name of the product,

they include the percentage of chicken in the ingredients list,

where, they believe, most consumers would expect to find it.

But Philip seems unlikely to change his mind on this,

especially after testing out those new designs.

This is the way it should say it.

It should say exactly what the contents are right on the front,

in bold unmistakable lettering.

Now, when we look at the labels on food,

we trust that they're honest about what's inside.

And, in fact, there are rules to make sure that they don't mislead us

with promises they can't keep.

But labels don't necessarily tell us the whole story,

and that means we may form the wrong idea about a product

because of the language that's been used on the label.

For example, take the word natural.

To lots of us, natural is a reassuring word

that you might assume implies

that the product hasn't had much done to it.

But it may surprise you to know that some products labelled natural

have a rather more complicated history than you'd think.

These days, heavily-processed and additive-filled foods

top the list of things many of us want to cut back on.

It must be a whale!

Which is why so many of us,

including the parents at this book shop in Manchester,

are choosing to give our families apparently purer foods.

And what could be more pure and natural

than something labelled as, well, natural?

If I saw the term natural,

I'd assume it's got no additives or preservatives.

I would buy something that has natural written on it,

cos it, I would think it would be better for my family.

It conjures up images of farms and lovely rural places

um, and you'd naturally be more drawn

to giving that to your children.

According to a survey a couple of years ago,

one in three of us now claims to actively seek out natural products,

and 70% of people asked said that, to them,

it's important that food is natural.

So it's no surprise that brands can be keen

to make a link between their product and nature.

But whilst branding expert Gary Davies

understands why companies would want to associate their foods

with something that so many people clearly value,

he also thinks that the terms they use are almost meaningless.

The word natural is one of the favourite words

for a marketing person,

because it's sort of vague.

Nobody quite knows what it means,

but it sounds as if it must be good for you,

it sounds, it's pure,

it even sounds as if it might be more healthy

than something which is unnatural.

Many of the products that use the term natural

in their names or on the label

are cereals, snacks and drinks.

And alongside whatever natural ingredients they contain,

there may be high levels of sugar or fat,

meaning they may not always be quite the healthy choice you might think.

This cereal bar actually contains 28.3% sugar,

nearly 6% more than the amount

which the NHS would term "high-sugar product."

And this snack has 40.7% sugar and 24.6% fat.

Anything above 17.5% total fat

is considered a "high-fat product" by the NHS.

All of which explains why obesity surgeon Dr Sally Norton

is so worried by the names and labels on some of our foods.

Manufacturers are very aware

that we're trying to eat more healthily,

and they're tapping into that vulnerability that we have.

I mean, people in the UK aren't stupid,

they know we need to eat better food and we need to tackle our weight,

and so they're actively looking for products that seem to be healthier.

And manufacturers are taking advantage of this,

it's something called the health halo,

so if you have products that say that they're natural

or full of fruit,

then we tend to pick them up, we buy more of them

and, actually, we eat more of them too,

which can result in, quite perversely,

in us eating more calories

than if we thought that it was an unhealthy product.

And Dr Norton has a few examples of products

that we might assume from the names or packaging would be good for us.

Well, if you look at this product,

it's actually got a really nice packaging to it.

It's got a nice green, um, logo up here

with some fields and things,

and then it's got a lovely big picture of fruit on here.

So I would be drawn to this,

it looks like a nice healthy product.

But actually, if you look at the back,

you'll see that it's got...

um, per 100g, it's got 26g of sugar.

That means that a quarter of this product is pure sugar.

And as for fruit,

only 3% of this product is fruit,

so we've got 3% fruit, 25% sugar.

Not quite as healthy now.

Now, this product is something

that my children have actually gone off and bought

when they wanted a drink

and they knew I wouldn't be too impressed

if they came back with a fizzy can of something.

So they bought this,

they were lured in by the green labelling and the fruits,

and somewhere on here, it says "natural mineral water."

And they drunk the whole lot themselves,

so they had over 10 teaspoons of sugar in this.

It says natural, it looks nice and healthy...

It's not at all, it's just sugary water.

The manufacturers of such products reject any criticisms,

saying their ingredients are made clear on the label.

Eat Natural told us more than half the sugars in its cereal bar

are from the dried fruit and honey,

and therefore, naturally occurring,

but in any case, it's...

..which they say are simple ones you'd find at home, with...

..in anything they make.

Volvic stressed its water

contains both natural mineral water and fruit flavourings,

and it...

..with the lemon and lime extracts enough to satisfy the rules

on what can be described as a natural flavouring.

Nature Valley, who make this oats and honey bar, didn't comment

and nor did the makers of the granola that Dr Norton looked at.

But she recommends looking carefully at the ingredients

before assuming that what you're buying is as healthy as it appears.

Products that have the label natural,

it doesn't mean that they're any better for you than other products.

They may be, but we need to read the back of the package

and look at those ingredients properly.

They may be no better for you at all.

And watch out for anything described on the label as natural sugars.

Dr Norton says that doesn't make them any healthier.

Sugar is sugar is sugar, basically.

In fact, I think there are about 50 different terms

that manufacturers can use for sugar on the back of their products,

and we are fooled by them.

We think that honey is better for us because it's natural.

It's just sugar, and we mustn't be fooled by these terms.

There are no laws governing the use of the word natural on food labels,

but there are guidelines

which suggest that it means food is made of natural ingredients,

and that no chemicals, additives or flavourings have been added.

By that criteria, all of the foods are OK

to describe themselves as natural,

even if that doesn't mean they're necessarily healthy.

So this is a grey area,

and because it's a grey area,

it's one that marketing people can exploit,

taking advantages of the connotations

that we put around a word like natural.

It's wholesome, it's good for you,

it's better for you than if we didn't use that word.

But fundamentally, it's a word which has no particular meaning.

Did you know that a quarter of us suffer from an allergy?

Now, it might be to something like pollen or pet hair,

which, although annoying,

can usually be pretty straightforward to manage.

But food allergies can be much more difficult to tackle,

which is why we rely on what manufacturers

put on the actual labels,

to tell us whether a particular food is going to be safe to eat.

Now, all of that's fine

if the label says the product definitely DOES contain

whatever it is you're allergic to.

But if it simply says it "might",

well, that may mean that you're avoiding foods

that you actually could be enjoying.

So when we heard about one mum,

asking why she couldn't be told for sure

what is in some of the food she buys,

I went off to investigate.

Even the smallest trace of nuts in a product

can cause serious problems for those who are allergic to them.

So you might think the familiar warning "may contain nuts"

would be welcomed by Clare Hussein from Portsmouth,

whose four-year-old daughter Bikita

suffers from 11 food allergies,

including one to nuts.

But in fact, Clare doesn't consider such a vague warning helpful.

She wants to know for sure what is in Bikita's food

to make sure she doesn't come into contact with the allergens

that could trigger a sudden reaction.

Everywhere you go, you're worrying about what could happen.

You worry about surfaces having...

food or protein from different foods on them

that she's going to get on her hands.

For Clare, the weekly food shop can prove very tricky indeed,

because of the minefield of products

that need to be checked and avoided.

There isn't one shop I can go into

and...do a complete food shop.

I have to visit three or four supermarkets.

And because food manufacturers often change their recipes,

or the way they make their products,

Clare has to meticulously check the labels

every single time she shops.

Even after I've done the shopping,

I have to e-mail the manufacturers to find out their facilities

and the conditions the food's made in.

You just have to be so vigilant at all times,

and there's no room for error.

The range of foods Bikita can eat without Clare having to worry

is pretty slim.

So when she finds something Bikita loves that's completely safe,

it's a minor victory against the allergies.

And for the last six months,

Bikita's favourite treat has been chocolate buttons.

But on a recent trip to the supermarket,

the ones they normally buy were nowhere to be found.

Previously, the supermarket had stocked

a different brand of chocolate buttons

that were safe

um, and were well known for being safe

and produced in a nut-free facility.

That product had disappeared off the shelves for a while

and had now been replaced with the supermarket's own chocolate buttons.

These new buttons were free from dairy, gluten

and some other allergens.

But unfortunately for Bikita,

the label still had one very important warning.

I picked up the packet,

being excited that we'd found a new product,

turned the packet over,

and was immediately...disheartened in that it said,

"Also, may contain nuts."

I couldn't buy the product, I had to put it back on the shelf.

Clare has also noticed that a whole range of other products

she'd previously bought at various supermarkets

now seem to carry that "may contain nuts" warning,

including unexpected things

like butternut squash, apple juice and bananas.

I find it hard to imagine how...

a banana, for example, would have come into contact

with any kind of nuts,

so to then put a label on it to say may contain nuts...

just, it...it seems silly.

We took a close look at the labelling

on a real mix of supermarket products,

from a variety of stores and manufacturers.

And like Clare, we're just a little surprised

by some of the foods that warn they may contain nuts.

Let's look at the apple juice.

Up here, "May contain nuts."

To me, it is nuts to think they would be in the apple juice,

but anyway, there you go.

And then you have a look at Greek style yogurt.

Straightforward, you might think.

"Allergy advice. May contain nuts."

Let's see what else we have over here.

Tomato and mushroom pasta sauce.

And here we go,

"Allergy advice. May contain traces of nuts."

A recent survey from the Food Standards Agency

found half of all products with allergy warnings on the label

didn't, in fact, contain any allergens at all.

So when Clare found that new range of chocolate buttons

in the supermarket,

she wasn't satisfied at being told it may contain nuts.

She wanted to know for sure whether it did or it didn't.

So she contacted the store to find out,

and was told that these labels are only used

when there is "a demonstrable risk."

But Clare doesn't think that that's good enough

and wants to know why more detail can't be given.

"May contain" labels are very vague.

They don't tell you whether the facility has nuts in the factory

or they're on the same line as the product you're buying.

And a "may contain" label means that I cannot buy that product.

So, rather than using the word may,

could food manufacturers give a more definitive answer

on what is inside?

To find out some of the challenges around this,

I've come to Saffron Walden in Essex,

where Simon Hatcher is the operations director

at Cole's Puddings.

Well, Simon, I have to say, I am not Mary Berry,

so this looks like a lot of baking here.

So, what exactly are you making here?

We're making some brandy Christmas puddings here.

What would you normally do? Throw the whole box in?

-Would you like me to take over?

-I think I would.

-OK, there you go with the nuts.

-There we go, we just tip them.

It just smells like Christmas,

but I guess that's right, as you're making Christmas pudding.

-SHE LAUGHS

-I love it.

These puddings do contain nuts,

which means Simon wouldn't be confident

of making any other puddings he could label as nut-free

using the same machinery,

just in case the slightest trace of nut slips through.

There's a real risk of having nut contamination.

You imagine, you have to clean down every piece of machinery

from, between a nut product and a non-nut product.

It's quite a big risk for someone who has a nut allergy

to have a piece of nut in there.

Morrisons told us that its low fat Greek yoghurt

is made in the same manufacturing site

as its low fat hazelnut yoghurt,

so a warning...

ASDA declined to comment

when asked about its tomato and pasta sauce,

but the British Retail Consortium,

which represents most of the supermarkets,

told us that its members

would always "use a thorough risk assessment"

to work out if a warning is required.

And as for the Tesco apple juice...

well, more on that shortly.

Now, to guard against the possibility of cross-contamination,

Cole's could very easily just put on the label

those three words that drive Clare mad -

may contain nuts.

But instead, this particular company has found a very different way

to ensure its nut-free puddings really are nut-free.

They make them in a completely different factory,

over 35 miles away.

This is where we do the specialist puddings,

so we do the free from

and it's fairly labour intensive

and, erm, smaller volumes.

I know that some sites do have the two things on the same site.

We don't, we think it's too dangerous.

But not all manufacturers are able to have separate sites

to make sure the ingredients from one product

can't contaminate another.

Which is why, even if there is the tiniest risk,

labelling even the most surprising goods

with the warning "may contain nuts"

remains the best way to flag up the danger,

however annoying that may be for customers who want to know for sure.

You can see both sides of that.

You can see that the factory side of it would be,

"Well, we've got to be careful.

"One minute drop of this allergen

"will set off an anaphylactic shock."

And the other side, the frustration,

"Well, I can eat that, I know I can eat that,

"but it says it may contain nuts, so that stops me."

That's a feeling that mums like Clare know all too well.

But, for her, at least,

there's one piece of good news on the horizon.

When we contacted Tesco,

the store whose range of chocolate buttons

prompted Clare to write to us in the first place,

it told us its...

And reiterated that the may contain nuts label

is displayed only...

But the store made clear that it continues to review

labelling on all products,

and in doing so,

has found that some of their suppliers

have incorrectly stuck a warning on products

that don't in fact require one at all.

And there are other suppliers that have "reassessed their processes",

including the ones that make their chocolate buttons,

and their apple juice.

Tesco told us that as a result, these labels will be changed,

with the "may contain" statement removed.

And although that means Clare can once again

give her daughter Bikita the treat she loves,

she wishes she could get a definitive answer

on all the food she buys.

I hope that when my daughter's older,

she is able to go into a supermarket,

pick up a food product

and be able to tell from that label whether it's safe for her or not.

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.

And I'm afraid that's just about it for today,

but I do hope you've picked up some hints and tips

on what to keep in mind about the food that you buy.

And you can always find out more advice, of course, on our website.

The address, as always...

And from there,

you can send us your own stories to investigate,

whether they're about food or any of the other topics

that we investigate throughout the year.

And we'll be back to look into more of your stories very soon,

but until then, thanks for joining us

and until the next time

-from all the team, goodbye.

-Bye-bye.

-Bye-bye.