:00:14. > :00:16.Today, the 300-year union between England and Scotland was put on
:00:16. > :00:20.notice. Alex Salmond has got his referendum.
:00:20. > :00:24.And now the battle has commenced over everything from the economy to
:00:24. > :00:27.killing off Trident. As Mr Cameron leaves Scotland, the
:00:28. > :00:32.question is, is the union safer or more in jeopardy?
:00:32. > :00:39.We will hear from Scotland's leading "yes" woman, and Alistair
:00:39. > :00:45.Darling, the man who says "no". You are what you eat, but do you
:00:45. > :00:51.know what you are eating and what it does to your body and your brain.
:00:51. > :00:57.Shrimp scampi for you, smell that garlic. While scientists begin to
:00:57. > :01:01.look at how addictive food is. The lawyers are chasing big food for
:01:01. > :01:04.billions. These companies will be forced to obey the law and be
:01:04. > :01:10.forced to pay a lot of money, and they have brought it on themselves.
:01:10. > :01:16.Is it game over for men, a sensational new book claims the
:01:16. > :01:24.global recession is ushering in a matriarchy, not so says Mary Beard,
:01:24. > :01:27.as she takes on the author of The End of Men.
:01:28. > :01:31.Good evening, signed, sealed and delivered. At least Alex Salmond
:01:31. > :01:34.and David Cameron have agreed there will be a legally binding
:01:34. > :01:39.referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, even if that's all they
:01:39. > :01:43.agree on. Less than 20 years after the referendum, which established a
:01:43. > :01:47.Scottish Parliament, voters in Scotland, including 16 and 17-year-
:01:47. > :01:50.olds, are going to vote on going all the way. The serried ranks,
:01:50. > :01:55.some would say the unholy alliance of Labour, Conservative and Liberal
:01:55. > :01:58.Democrats, are going to battle for the union, that has been in place
:01:58. > :02:00.since 1707. We witnessed the historic deal between the Prime
:02:00. > :02:06.Minister and the First Minister in the Scottish capital, and joins us
:02:06. > :02:09.there from now. Kirsty, it's not often that
:02:09. > :02:12.politicians can legitimately claim that in the course of their day's
:02:12. > :02:16.work they have done something that could echo down the centuries. But
:02:16. > :02:19.here in Edinburgh today, two leaders have met, they have shaken
:02:19. > :02:23.hands, and they have agreed to do something. They have agreed to take
:02:23. > :02:27.a gamble, that they are right, and the other man is wrong. For Alex
:02:27. > :02:31.Salmond, the gamble is simple, for the last decade or so, the
:02:31. > :02:36.electoral success of the SNP, and it has been successful, they have a
:02:36. > :02:39.majority in the Scottish Parliament, has been to say to the largely
:02:39. > :02:42.independent, sceptical Scottish public, don't worry, if you don't
:02:42. > :02:47.agree with us on this, we can park this issue and decide another day.
:02:48. > :02:51.That day is coming, it will be in the autumn of 2014. He is about to
:02:51. > :02:55.define himself, he is defining himself on the other side of public
:02:55. > :03:00.opinion, from the vast, or at least the majority, of the Scottish
:03:00. > :03:03.public. For David Cameron, it is a gamble as well. He's saying that,
:03:03. > :03:08.although he cares passionately about the future of the union, it's
:03:08. > :03:12.probably more dangerous for him, in the course of that union's future,
:03:12. > :03:17.to stand against a referendum. He has done everything he can today,
:03:17. > :03:22.even going along with, what he would probably regard, as some
:03:23. > :03:29.grandise choreography, to prevent - - grandiose choreography, to
:03:29. > :03:34.prevent the Scottish showing him as a great English story for the date
:03:34. > :03:42.with destiny. Two men take a gamble, and we won't know who it is for two
:03:42. > :03:46.years. For a potentially momentous day in
:03:46. > :03:50.Scottish history, the First Minister, at least, it started on a
:03:50. > :03:56.microscale, reading to little children. But the text was, well,
:03:56. > :04:00.apt enough. For those not familiar with the excellent We're Going On A
:04:00. > :04:06.Bear Hunt, it is a tale of perseverence, of overcoming
:04:06. > :04:13.seemingly insurmountable obstacles, bay facing them head on. -- by
:04:13. > :04:22.facing them head on. "mud, boozing mud, we can't go over it, we can't
:04:22. > :04:28.go under it, no, we have to go through the mud". Through all sorts
:04:28. > :04:32.of political mud, Alex Salmond has squelched his way through to a
:04:32. > :04:36.referendum. Not everyone thought he had the legal right to call one.
:04:36. > :04:40.But today came the might of the Government of David Cameron who
:04:40. > :04:45.lend him that right to have one, in return for certain conditions. If
:04:45. > :04:49.this reminds you of a state visit, you might think that is one of Alex
:04:49. > :04:52.Salmond's objectives, to show, with the choreography of this event,
:04:52. > :04:57.that the Prime Minister visiting parts of the UK, is actually coming
:04:57. > :05:01.to an already independent-minded country. Are you ready. OK.
:05:01. > :05:07.signing had the appearance of an international treaty, which David
:05:07. > :05:10.Cameron clearly won hands down. If If the objective was, who could
:05:10. > :05:12.sign fastest. In terms of the agreement itself, a winner is
:05:12. > :05:18.harder to call. Alex Salmond certainly got what he wanted in
:05:18. > :05:22.terms of timing, the autumn of 2014, not only the anniversary of
:05:22. > :05:27.Bannockburn, but also, it gives him more time to try to turn around
:05:27. > :05:31.public opinion. He also got 16 and 17-year-olds eligible to vote. More
:05:31. > :05:36.likely, some say, to vote for independence. And what did David
:05:36. > :05:41.Cameron get? His big prize was, limiting the referendum to a single
:05:41. > :05:49.question, independence, yes or not. No third option that the SNP wanted,
:05:49. > :05:54.no option for Devo Max. We got what I have always wanted, not two
:05:54. > :05:59.single questions, not Devo Max, a very simple single question that
:05:59. > :06:01.has to be put before the end of 2014, so we end the uncertainty, we
:06:01. > :06:05.put beyond doubt Scotland's position, either within the United
:06:06. > :06:10.Kingdom, as I hope, or separating theself from the United Kingdom.
:06:10. > :06:14.One, single, simple question, that, for me, was always the key. Don't
:06:14. > :06:20.expect David Cameron to be making too many visits to Scotland to make
:06:20. > :06:24.the case for the union. Before fearless Felix stepped out
:06:24. > :06:29.of his balloon capsule, the previous free fall record was held
:06:29. > :06:32.by the Scottish Conservative Party. They haven't fully emerged from the
:06:32. > :06:36.sizeable impact crater they have made. Don't expect them to be
:06:36. > :06:39.leading the way for the union in Scottened la, instead, expect
:06:39. > :06:43.Labour to do much of the -- Scotland, instead, expect Labour to
:06:43. > :06:46.do much of the heavy lifting. To have people like David Cameron,
:06:46. > :06:50.very ideaable with England, talking about the advantages of being in
:06:50. > :06:55.the union, is that actually damaging to your cause? No, I don't
:06:55. > :07:00.think so. I think he's quite comfortable in St Andrew's House,
:07:00. > :07:03.because the affectionate name for the SNP is, "the tartan Tories", he
:07:03. > :07:09.will find fellow travellers there. The question of whether we remain
:07:09. > :07:12.in the union, transcends political parties. It is about what's good
:07:12. > :07:16.for the people of the country. You will find people come together,
:07:16. > :07:21.from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, those in a party, those not even
:07:21. > :07:26.aligned at all, because they care about the future of Scotland.
:07:26. > :07:30.If you are Alex Salmond, how do you claim to have won the negotiations
:07:30. > :07:34.game, set and match, without appearing smug? Well, off the cuff,
:07:34. > :07:40.entirely unscripted, you could say, something like this. I used to have
:07:40. > :07:45.in my notes, which no doubt came from the special advisers, it says,
:07:45. > :07:49."do not look triumphalists", so in this press conference, I'm doing my
:07:49. > :07:53.absolute best not to look triumphalist! At his press
:07:53. > :07:59.conference, the First Minister tried to he can sued the air of a
:07:59. > :08:04.man who had -- he can sued the air of a man who dexude the air of a
:08:04. > :08:09.man who had everything he wanted. In Edinburgh they will everything
:08:09. > :08:13.they wanted, that will be built on behalf of the Scottish people. That
:08:13. > :08:17.is the substantial and important step forward, do I believe that
:08:17. > :08:20.independence will win this campaign? Yes, I do. We will win it
:08:20. > :08:27.by setting out a positive vision for a better future for our country,
:08:27. > :08:31.economically, and crucially, socially. It is that vision of That
:08:31. > :08:36.is a vision of a compassionate and confident society moving forward in
:08:36. > :08:40.Scotland that will carry away. What he hasn't won -- Carry the day.
:08:40. > :08:44.What he hasn't won yet is the referendum itself. And the polls
:08:44. > :08:49.suggest now he won't. The majority in Scotland are opposed, only 28%
:08:49. > :08:53.are in favour. But with two years left to go, perhaps he still has
:08:53. > :08:57.time to squelch through that obstacle as well.
:08:57. > :09:02.In a moment we will hear from a leading figure of the "no" campaign,
:09:02. > :09:05.Alistair Darling. Before coming on air, I spoke to the Deputy First
:09:06. > :09:09.Minister of Scotland, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon.
:09:09. > :09:13.Nicola Sturgeon, consistently polling shows 2-1 against
:09:13. > :09:17.independence, isn't this going to be like pushing a boulder up a
:09:17. > :09:21.giant mountain? It is a challenge, I readily accept that. But it is a
:09:21. > :09:28.challenge we relish. You will remember, Kirsty, back in January
:09:29. > :09:33.of 2011, the SNP was ten fifteen points back in the opinion polls,
:09:33. > :09:36.people wrote us off and we won a majority in the election. If we put
:09:36. > :09:39.the argument for independence as effectively and compellingly as we
:09:39. > :09:44.know it can be put, I'm confident we can turn the polls around and
:09:44. > :09:47.win the referendum. Let as talk about the economy, that is
:09:47. > :09:51.obviously uppermost in people's minds, you want to stick to
:09:51. > :09:55.sterling, what control will you have over the sterling, except to
:09:55. > :10:01.leave it? We will have fiscal independence, we don't that have
:10:01. > :10:06.that now. You will be like Greece and Slovenia, and what have you?
:10:06. > :10:09.The comparisons with Greece and Slovenia are not particularly
:10:09. > :10:12.credible comparisons. Scotland and the rest of the UK have similar
:10:12. > :10:17.levels of productivity, it is described as an optimal currency
:10:17. > :10:20.area, it makes sense for Scotland and the rest of the UK to retain
:10:20. > :10:23.that currency union. We would have fiscal independence to take
:10:23. > :10:29.decisions about tax and spending, that best reflect our needs in
:10:29. > :10:32.Scotland. Who will set the interest rates in Scotland? As is case at
:10:32. > :10:35.the moment, that would be done through the Bank of England.
:10:35. > :10:42.the benefit of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, primarily? That
:10:42. > :10:46.would be done for the benefit of the constituent parts of the stairl
:10:46. > :10:50.sterling parts owing. What we would have that we don't have now, is
:10:50. > :10:54.fiscal independence, it would allow us to ensure we have tax and
:10:54. > :10:58.spending controls for our needs, and control over the welfare system.
:10:58. > :11:02.Right now we see a Conservative Government dismantling the welfare
:11:02. > :11:06.state, independence would allow a welfare system that suits our needs.
:11:06. > :11:09.You are heavily dependant on oil revenues, in our new system, you
:11:09. > :11:12.don't know what percentage of revenues you are going to get. You
:11:12. > :11:16.don't know what the price will be, you haven't even done that
:11:16. > :11:21.negotiation, how can you promise Scottish people more? But you look
:11:21. > :11:23.at the Government extendure and -- expenditure and revenue account,
:11:23. > :11:29.published independently by Government economist, the most
:11:29. > :11:36.recent version of that, the 2010 will be 11 figures, shows Scotland
:11:36. > :11:39.was better off d2010/1 figures, shows Scotland better off to the
:11:39. > :11:42.rest of England. If we were independent then, we could have
:11:43. > :11:46.choices we could have made. We could have spent more and reduced
:11:46. > :11:50.borrowing more, and cut taxes or a bomb nation of all of these things.
:11:50. > :11:53.Scotland more than pays her way. The question is, do we want to have
:11:53. > :11:58.the economic and political powers that allow us to take the decisions
:11:58. > :12:01.about how those resources are spent. Both you and Alex Salmond are very
:12:01. > :12:06.keen to say that you admire the cultural ties you have with England
:12:06. > :12:11.and so forth. How much do you think has Scotland
:12:11. > :12:16.gained from the union? I think Scotland has gained in some ways
:12:16. > :12:20.from the union, but I do think the lack of political and economic
:12:20. > :12:23.powers outweighs. That I want Scotland to have a close and
:12:23. > :12:28.constructive and friendly relationship with people right
:12:28. > :12:33.across these islands. I'm the granddaughter of an English woman,
:12:33. > :12:36.I cheered Mo Farah in the Olympics, as loudly as Andy Murray. We're not
:12:36. > :12:39.asking people to choose a flag or a national identity, we are asking
:12:39. > :12:43.people to consider where political and economic power best lies.
:12:43. > :12:46.Surely the people that are best placed to take these big decisions
:12:46. > :12:50.of Scotland, are the people who have the biggest stake in the
:12:50. > :12:54.future of our country. The people who live and work here. That is the
:12:54. > :12:59.essence for the case for independence. When we put it like
:12:59. > :13:04.that, and when people realising those arguing for the "no" vote are
:13:04. > :13:07.offering no guaranteed change. You will then see the opinion polls
:13:07. > :13:16.change. Alistair Darling is, of course, the
:13:16. > :13:21.former Chancellor, he's acting as the chair of the Berry -- Better
:13:21. > :13:27.Together Campaign. Does it feel right to be in cahoots with a party
:13:27. > :13:30.that has one MP out of 129? disagree with David Cameron and
:13:30. > :13:34.George Osborne and Nick Clegg on many issues, that doesn't stop me
:13:34. > :13:37.from choose to go share a platform with other people who believe we
:13:37. > :13:40.are better off together within the United Kingdom. It doesn't mean you
:13:40. > :13:43.agree with all their policies. We are not talking here about electing
:13:43. > :13:47.a parliament for five years, or whatever. You are talking about
:13:47. > :13:51.something that could last another 300 years. I think most people, the
:13:51. > :13:56.majority of people in Scotland believe that we are better together
:13:56. > :14:02.as part of the UK. This is all a bit rich, for people like you and
:14:02. > :14:06.Gordon Brown, and Charlie Kennedy, had decided to eschew Westminster
:14:06. > :14:11.and gone to parliament in Edinburgh, the idea is we wouldn't have been
:14:11. > :14:14.in this position, because you would have lent your weight to
:14:14. > :14:19.devolution? The fact is the Scottish Parliament wasn't there
:14:19. > :14:22.when we stood for election. It wasn't until 1997 when it was set
:14:22. > :14:25.up. You could have absented yourself? It could have done,
:14:25. > :14:30.except I chose to remain in Westminster. Because it was better?
:14:30. > :14:33.No, because if you take the economy, I was responsible for many things
:14:33. > :14:36.that affect Scotland. That doesn't get away from the fact that the
:14:36. > :14:39.nationalists, who won the Scottish election last year, are entitled,
:14:39. > :14:42.because this is what they believe in, to put before people, the
:14:43. > :14:46.option of leaving the United Kingdom. I think that is profoundly
:14:46. > :14:51.wrong. Which is why I'm leading thism ka pain. Its not about me or
:14:51. > :14:55.-- this campaign, it is not about me or Gordon or Charlie, this will
:14:55. > :15:00.be something that will be there long after we are going down.
:15:00. > :15:05.are leading a negative "no" campaign? It is called Better
:15:05. > :15:09.Together. It is the "no" campaign. You want to characterise it like
:15:09. > :15:11.that. No to independence? We are better together as the United
:15:11. > :15:17.Kingdom, because we have a single economic market, most of what we
:15:17. > :15:20.sell goes to England. It also, because it builds on the strong
:15:20. > :15:24.cultural ties we have. And a third part, it gives us more influence,
:15:24. > :15:29.not just in Europe, but the wider world. Just as Andrew Mitchell
:15:29. > :15:34.finds it hard to say the word "pleb" you find it hard to say "no",
:15:34. > :15:36.you are leading the "no" to independence campaign?
:15:36. > :15:39.emphatically against independence, I'm very much in favour of staying
:15:39. > :15:43.in the United Kingdom, because I believe as a country, as Scotland,
:15:43. > :15:47.we don't have to choose between being Scottish and British, we can
:15:47. > :15:50.be proud to be both, it is in the best interests of Scotland in terms
:15:50. > :15:57.of jobs and security, as well as recognising that the United Kingdom
:15:57. > :16:01.is more than the sum of the parts. We can be ambitious about our
:16:01. > :16:07.prospects for the future, as part of the United Kingdom. You have put
:16:07. > :16:11.out as the leading face for the "no" campaign against Alex Salmond,
:16:11. > :16:14.are you a better politician or he better as a politician than you?
:16:14. > :16:17.is not that question. He believes in taking Scotland out of the
:16:17. > :16:21.United Kingdom. I believe Scotland is better together as part of the
:16:21. > :16:24.United Kingdom, and that is the basis of a campaign. He has won an
:16:24. > :16:27.election, straight in Scotland? is interesting, a lot of the polls
:16:27. > :16:31.that have been carried out, people say, yes, for the Government of
:16:31. > :16:35.Scotland, they voted for him, but nearly a third of SNP voters, last
:16:35. > :16:39.time round, said they are not going to vote for independence. People
:16:39. > :16:43.vote given ways at different times. This isn't an argument about which
:16:43. > :16:47.politician is better than another. It might come down to that? No, it
:16:47. > :16:49.doesn't. People in Scotland will have to decide whether or not they
:16:49. > :16:53.and their country are better together as part of the UK, with
:16:53. > :16:59.all the strengths, all the traditions that builds on, or
:16:59. > :17:02.whether we take what is in effect a one-way ticket into a deeply
:17:02. > :17:05.uncertain future. Would you live in an independent Scotland? Of course
:17:05. > :17:11.I will carry on living in Scotland. My argument isn't that Scotland
:17:11. > :17:15.couldn't go it alone. And indeed, Nicola Sturgeon was quoting figures
:17:15. > :17:17.there, plucking one set of figuring out of a series of 20, many of
:17:17. > :17:22.which show the complete oppositement when you look at the
:17:22. > :17:25.problems you are going to have in entering into a eurozone-style
:17:25. > :17:29.single currency, you have to enter into a fiscal pact that doesn't
:17:29. > :17:32.allow different countries to go their own way. It rather binds them
:17:32. > :17:35.together. And ultimately it ends up in political union. When you look
:17:35. > :17:38.at the arguments the nationalists are putting forward, it makes no
:17:38. > :17:44.sense at all. They are trying to argue that everything will change,
:17:44. > :17:48.but nothing will change. The next time you buy packaged food,
:17:48. > :17:51.peer at the ingredient, all of them, and try to work out what they all
:17:51. > :17:56.are. Chances are if it is processed you won't be able to figure out
:17:56. > :17:58.exactly what you are eating, and so concerned are health specialists
:17:58. > :18:04.and campaigners about the sometimes horrible stuff you unknowingly put
:18:04. > :18:07.in your mouth, and the health implications, diep II diabetes,
:18:07. > :18:11.that American lawyers are prepared to go after billions of dollars.
:18:11. > :18:21.They have had a huge victory before. In the first of a series of films
:18:21. > :18:25.
:18:25. > :18:29.this week about what we eat, here is our science editor.
:18:30. > :18:35.# It's just a cigarette # It will soon be only ten
:18:35. > :18:38.# Honey can you trust me # When I want to stop I can
:18:38. > :18:42.Cutting smoking was one of the great public health battles of the
:18:42. > :18:46.last century. At first, the idea that cigarettes
:18:46. > :18:52.were bad for you, was dismissed, out of hand.
:18:52. > :18:56.By the end, the toe bab co- companies admitted, in court, that
:18:56. > :19:01.smoking was -- to be back co- companies admitted, in court, that
:19:01. > :19:08.smoking was harmful, and they agreed to pay substantial damages.
:19:08. > :19:17.The to be back co-lawsuits hit those companies -- tobacco lawsuits
:19:17. > :19:23.hit those companies hard, over �$2 billion. Now the food industry is
:19:23. > :19:27.facing the same argument. Some food producers survive on a business
:19:27. > :19:30.model that means exploiting children from a young age, and
:19:30. > :19:35.having foods high in sugar, fat and salt, because people consume those
:19:35. > :19:40.things, it is labelling things in questionable questions. The food
:19:40. > :19:48.companies have mis-branded many, many of the packaged foods that
:19:48. > :19:52.they sell as healthy, and natural. Also as sugar-free. You can't say
:19:52. > :19:58.it is all natural when it is choc full of preservatives. They are
:19:58. > :20:04.lying about it, and they have to stop. Don Barrett led the fight
:20:04. > :20:14.against big tobacco, he worked on the Jeffrey Wigand case, the
:20:14. > :20:17.
:20:17. > :20:22.whistleblower who told all. movie was spot on with what
:20:23. > :20:28.happened. I have this vivid rex collections that The Insider we
:20:28. > :20:32.flipped in parliament who testified for us at great personal risk.
:20:32. > :20:36.Jail? Possible, yes, that is one of the possible consequences of your
:20:36. > :20:44.testifying today. I remember him, as he made his decision, and it was
:20:44. > :20:48.fascinating to watch Russell Crowe do the same thing. Let's go to
:20:48. > :20:53.court. Now Barrett and many of those lawyers are turning their
:20:53. > :20:57.guns on big food. The case against the food companies is simple, that
:20:57. > :21:02.they are not being honest about what's in their product. They have
:21:02. > :21:08.a right to know, and that's what our litigation is about. It's about
:21:08. > :21:14.freedom of choice, and to have free choice, you have to have accurate
:21:14. > :21:18.information, what that means is, that the big food, the food
:21:18. > :21:27.companies have to start telling the truth about what is in their
:21:27. > :21:36.products. The law requires it. years ago, Mr Barrett began his
:21:36. > :21:41.campaign against big tobacco here in Lexington Mississippi. Since
:21:41. > :21:45.then the number of obese Americans have doubled, the ballooning
:21:45. > :21:48.medical costs already rival those of smoking. What is in our food is
:21:48. > :21:53.becoming the public health battle of this century. And labelling is
:21:53. > :21:57.the first battleground. One lawsuit concerns a yoghurt maker, Chobani.
:21:57. > :22:04.You look for sugar, because you don't want any, there is none there.
:22:04. > :22:11.They do have evaporated cane juice, that sounds, sort of vague, and
:22:11. > :22:15.some how healthy, and natural. Evaporated cane juice, if you live
:22:16. > :22:23.in southern Louisiana, in Cuba, you understand what that is, that is
:22:23. > :22:28.sugar. The law says, you have to call ingredients by their common,
:22:28. > :22:38.ordinary name, calling sugar evaporated cane juice is deceptive,
:22:38. > :22:38.
:22:38. > :22:42.it is a lie, it is illegal. Chobani told us they have built
:22:42. > :22:46.their business on being authentic and transparent, and they fully
:22:46. > :22:52.stand behind their products. Don Barrett is suing the makers of over
:22:52. > :22:58.20 item, including fruit juices, crisps, soft drinks, chocolate,
:22:58. > :23:03.tinned tomatos, canned fruits, baby milk and tea. Under federal law, if
:23:04. > :23:08.a product is mis-branded, it cannot be sold. There is a four-year
:23:08. > :23:12.statute of limitations, the damage in these cases, is how much have
:23:12. > :23:20.they sold of this mis-branded junk in the last four years. One of the
:23:20. > :23:24.potato chip companies we are suing, you know, sells $13 billion worth
:23:24. > :23:29.of product a year. My goodness. are seeing the beginning of what
:23:29. > :23:35.could be a much larger set of legal actions taken against the food
:23:35. > :23:39.industry. This is one of the world's leading experts on obesity
:23:39. > :23:43.and public health. He thinks the industry will fight as hard as
:23:43. > :23:46.tobacco did, to keep its business model intact. The industry in the
:23:46. > :23:51.United States and elsewhere in the world has been happy to make some
:23:51. > :23:54.small changes, but when it comes to taxing their products, they have
:23:54. > :23:59.gone completely ballistic. When it comes to restricting portion sizes,
:23:59. > :24:04.they have done the same thing. They are doing lots of the things the
:24:04. > :24:08.tobacco industry did to fight these massive lobbying. Resources put
:24:08. > :24:14.into political campaigns, heavy public relations and advertising
:24:14. > :24:19.campaigns they are running. Creating fun groups with community,
:24:19. > :24:26.wholesome-sounding names. Researchers here at Yale are
:24:26. > :24:30.looking much more closely at the links between processed food and
:24:30. > :24:35.diet-related illness. They are increasingly convinced
:24:35. > :24:40.that it is the particular combination of sugar, fat and salt,
:24:40. > :24:45.and its concentration in refined form, that leads us to want to eat
:24:45. > :24:50.more. Lawyers talk about informed choice. But scientists are asking
:24:50. > :24:55.whether some have the ability to choose at all.
:24:55. > :25:00.It is pretty year that some foods, sugar in particular, activate the
:25:00. > :25:04.same reward pathways in the brain, the classic substances of abuse,
:25:04. > :25:08.still, heroin, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, et cetera. Nobody claims
:25:09. > :25:15.that food has that strong of an effect, as those classic substances,
:25:15. > :25:19.but in effect, nonetheless, -- an effect, nonetheless. There are
:25:19. > :25:23.signs from animal and human studies that you get cravings from these
:25:23. > :25:27.foods, you get withdrawal when people stop consuming them. There
:25:27. > :25:31.might even been be something called toll reign, that you need more of
:25:31. > :25:35.the same substance over time -- tolerance, that you need more of
:25:35. > :25:39.the same substance over time to get the same effect. Why does
:25:39. > :25:45.scientific research tell us about how what we eat is affecting our
:25:45. > :25:50.bodies. Here at the National laboratory in Long Island, they are
:25:50. > :25:53.looking at the effect of diet on our brains. It is an early area of
:25:53. > :25:58.research, but it could push the whole debate in another direction.
:25:58. > :26:04.This is one of the US Government's leading addiction labs. I have
:26:04. > :26:09.shrimp, scampi for you, smell that garlic and the shrimp. Researchers
:26:09. > :26:15.allow subjects to see, smell and taste foods they like, and monitor
:26:15. > :26:25.how vigorously their brain responds. By measuring how much dop dopamine
:26:25. > :26:27.
:26:27. > :26:32.is released. Dopamine is one of the brain's messenger, it helps us
:26:32. > :26:36.engage in rewarding exercises. Addicts are addicted to the
:26:36. > :26:41.dopamine, rather than the drug. you feel hungry now, give me a
:26:41. > :26:46.number, one to ten? Nine. They say people who are very obese, are less
:26:46. > :26:55.able to pick up their own dopamine signal, so need more of what makes
:26:55. > :27:01.them feel good. I'm starving. me a number, one to 10. I'm passed
:27:01. > :27:06.the ten, 14. Some people who crave food or drugs, want more and more,
:27:06. > :27:16.because they are never satisfied. Taste that banana cream pie, isn't
:27:16. > :27:21.that good, OK that's it. We found that the obese person, their brain
:27:21. > :27:24.dopamine receptor imaging, very similar to drug abuser, such as
:27:24. > :27:31.cocaine abuser. The higher rate means the higher activity, the one
:27:31. > :27:35.in the blue means a low activity. Dr Wang's scans shows the brain's
:27:35. > :27:41.dopamine response to food in obese people and cocaine in drug users,
:27:42. > :27:47.the parallels are striking. So that means also they have roughly around
:27:47. > :27:51.15-20% of the less dopamine receptor, we can see these are very
:27:51. > :27:54.similar between the obese person and the drug abuser. And though it
:27:54. > :27:59.is early days, there is evidence that the brains of some people
:27:59. > :28:07.might be changed over time, if they eat calorie-dense food. The more
:28:07. > :28:11.you need processed food, the brain gradually is less sense yif to each
:28:11. > :28:14.mouthful and you have to -- sensitive to each mouthful and you
:28:14. > :28:17.have to eat more and more. I would be surprised if this doesn't enter
:28:18. > :28:22.the legal picture. Whether that is premature or not, those will be
:28:22. > :28:24.decisions a court will have to make. Is the science strong enough, have
:28:24. > :28:30.we really proven these are addictive. But the science is
:28:30. > :28:33.building and building. So far the food debate has centered
:28:33. > :28:38.on content and labelling. The food industry argues such things are
:28:38. > :28:44.best left to theself. But many believe that self-regulation can't
:28:45. > :28:49.work. They, like any industry, want to maximise consumption and
:28:49. > :28:53.purchase of their products. Hard to blame them for that, that is what
:28:53. > :28:58.they are in business to do, so expecting and hoping industry will
:28:58. > :29:01.effectively regulate theself, is just wishful thinking, I believe. -
:29:01. > :29:04.- themselves, is just wishful thinking, I believe. That is why I
:29:04. > :29:08.believe you have to have Government or the courts involved. There is
:29:08. > :29:16.one thing that corporate America pays attention to. And that's
:29:16. > :29:22.getting hit in the pocket book, it is all about profit. And if only
:29:22. > :29:27.when you affect their -- effect their profit will you affect their
:29:27. > :29:31.behaviour. We intend to do that. # It is just a cigarette
:29:31. > :29:36.# Like you always used to do # I was different then
:29:36. > :29:42.# I don't need them to be cool Big food knows what happens in
:29:43. > :29:48.individual lawsuits can radically affect all of their brands.
:29:48. > :29:52.The tobacco lawsuits led to rapid and lasting change in attitudes to
:29:52. > :29:58.cigarettes, how they were marketed, labelled and regulated. The food
:29:58. > :30:02.companies will be watching Don Barrett's cases closely.
:30:02. > :30:06.Joining me now from Washington is Justin Wilson of the Center for
:30:06. > :30:13.Consumer Freedom, and here in the studio is a cardiologist, who has
:30:13. > :30:17.been outspoken on obesity. Do you agree with the thesis that
:30:17. > :30:22.essentially unhealthy junk food is addictive? As your report has shown,
:30:22. > :30:26.I think that there is definitely a science that suggests sugar in
:30:26. > :30:30.particular, is not only toxic, but acts on a brain that drives
:30:30. > :30:34.appetite, and stops us from feeling full. Whether that's objective, we
:30:34. > :30:39.need more data on that, certainly there is a theory this could be
:30:39. > :30:42.true. And when you look at some of the patients that you see, and you
:30:42. > :30:46.obviously see clinically obese people, but you see people with
:30:46. > :30:50.heart problems, who are not obese, is there a co-relation between
:30:50. > :30:53.their lifestyle, in terms of the food they eat, and how they are
:30:53. > :30:58.presenting to you? Absolutely. Let's look at the statistics at the
:30:58. > :31:03.moment, even for children, in this country one in three children in
:31:03. > :31:12.this country are overweight or he obese. More recently, we also
:31:12. > :31:18.discovered that there are markers of cardiac disease in country,
:31:18. > :31:23.there was a study showing children with markers of high cholesterol
:31:23. > :31:26.and issues with the heart, that is related to diet. If the food
:31:26. > :31:31.companies won't regulate themselves, is there a need for some form of
:31:31. > :31:34.regulation about the content of food? Let's be clear the debate
:31:34. > :31:40.about food addiction is ridiculous. We are addicted to food, it is
:31:40. > :31:47.clear, it is called hunger, if you try to go cold turkey, good luck,
:31:47. > :31:52.you won't survive it. If salt and sugar were addictive substances,
:31:52. > :31:58.that would make my grandmother a big drug dealer with the cookies
:31:58. > :32:02.she used to make. I reject this notion fully, that Americans cannot
:32:02. > :32:05.tell the difference between a banana and a banana split. If
:32:06. > :32:13.someone is saying we need to sue a crisp manufacturer for making
:32:13. > :32:18.something that people thought was healthy, come on, people know
:32:18. > :32:23.potato chips shouldn't be enjoyed in large quantities. We are missing
:32:23. > :32:27.the point. I'm not at all. What people choose to eat is determined
:32:27. > :32:32.more by the promotional information put on the products, not objective
:32:32. > :32:36.information about the nutritional content. We know there are cereals
:32:36. > :32:41.out there, marketed as being full of vitamin, they are loaded with
:32:41. > :32:50.sugar and salt. This is not allowing people to make informed
:32:50. > :32:53.decision. These words, "evaporated cane juice", why not call it sugar,
:32:53. > :32:58."evaporated cane juice" sounds like something special. That argument,
:32:59. > :33:03.one I have been following closely I think it represents 1%, and it is a
:33:03. > :33:06.problem. Do you know who doesn't make a claim about their food, ice-
:33:06. > :33:12.cream manufacturers, there is not a label on the front of ice-cream
:33:12. > :33:17.that says the calcium in this milk makes your bones strong. Nobody
:33:17. > :33:21.makes those claims about the vast majority of foods being claimed
:33:21. > :33:25.unhealthy. That is not the problem here. Fundamentally, I don't
:33:25. > :33:29.understand at what point we decided it was OK for the Government to
:33:29. > :33:33.decide how much we are allowed to weigh. That is not a point, I don't
:33:33. > :33:37.think, that the Government should have to make. Even though it has an
:33:37. > :33:42.impact on the healthcare system? have two different healthcare
:33:42. > :33:48.system,ly speak to everyone. In the UK everyone pays for each other's
:33:48. > :33:53.bad behaviour, but obesity is only one of many bad behaviours that
:33:53. > :33:56.contribute to rising healthcare costs. Why is it the one that we
:33:56. > :34:01.seem to be allowing to regulate it. I have talked to a lot of people,
:34:01. > :34:06.you have a lot of people looking down their nose at people who are
:34:06. > :34:12.overweight, saying they know what is best for you, and protect you
:34:12. > :34:16.from yourself, it is paternalistic. You were behind one of the moves
:34:16. > :34:19.against the supermarkets that didn't go on, would that have
:34:19. > :34:22.helped? There is strong evidence that suggest traffic light systems
:34:22. > :34:25.makes it easier for people to know what they are eating and
:34:25. > :34:31.encouraging healthy choice. If we have a traffic light system that
:34:31. > :34:35.displays the levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat in foods, it will
:34:35. > :34:38.encourage the food companies to reformulate their products and make
:34:38. > :34:42.them healthy. Wouldn't that be a positive way forward? The traffic
:34:42. > :34:45.light system, to a certain extent we already have it. It seems we are
:34:45. > :34:49.trying to force more and more manufacturing, we have a good
:34:49. > :34:52.balance. If you want to know what is in your food, it is on the back.
:34:53. > :34:56.Its clear, whether in the United States or Europe or anywhere else.
:34:56. > :35:00.At the same time, we live in culture of warning labels and
:35:00. > :35:05.lawsuits, we are going to get to a point where we have to put a little
:35:05. > :35:10.bit of responsibility on the consumer. Like I said before, it
:35:10. > :35:14.doesn't like a PhD in nutrition to tell the difference between a
:35:14. > :35:18.banana and a banana split F someone is trying to eek out a calorie or
:35:18. > :35:21.two savings, they are not trying to lose weight. What we are losing
:35:21. > :35:25.track of, we are not trying to encourage people to lose weight
:35:25. > :35:29.with the policies. The stream of allegations of child
:35:29. > :35:31.sex abuse by Jimmy Savile continues on an almost daily basis. The BBC
:35:31. > :35:36.has ordered three separate independent investigations into
:35:36. > :35:40.claims thatm so of the assaults took place on its premises. Tonight
:35:40. > :35:44.the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said there should be a public
:35:44. > :35:48.inquiry carried out by an outside body. I think we need a broader
:35:49. > :35:53.look at the public institutions, the BBC, some parts of the NHS,
:35:53. > :35:56.potentially. Broadmoor. A judicial inquiry? I'm still open-minded
:35:56. > :36:01.about how it is done, it has to be independent. I don't think you can
:36:01. > :36:06.have the BBC board, I'm great supporter of the BBc but I don't
:36:06. > :36:11.think you can have the BBC board leading its own inquiry. Do you
:36:11. > :36:19.this this is a surprising intervention by Ed Miliband,
:36:19. > :36:24.everyone else has piled in? There are many reasons, and I will go
:36:24. > :36:28.through them. He interferes in those situations, after the Milly
:36:29. > :36:32.Dowler inquiry he piled in. It is because he has a theory about
:36:32. > :36:36.British society right now, which is establishments are crumbling,
:36:36. > :36:39.exactly the thing in the spotlight with the BBC investigation, the
:36:39. > :36:42.1970s, that period where you had an establishment and people wouldn't
:36:42. > :36:47.say boo to a goose, and people are coming out and doing. That he wants
:36:47. > :36:52.to support that. The other problem for that is the BBC, it relies on
:36:52. > :36:55.trust, the number of inquiries, the one inquiry on the Thursday, two
:36:55. > :36:58.inquiries being announced on the Friday. It didn't inspire much
:36:58. > :37:03.confidence in many people in parliament. Does the pressure on
:37:03. > :37:06.the BBC continue? It does, today George Entwistle, the director-
:37:06. > :37:10.general, has said he will bring forward his appearance in front of
:37:10. > :37:14.an MPs' committee to October 23rd, he will have to have more rigorous
:37:14. > :37:16.answers than he had when he appeared on Friday. Many people
:37:16. > :37:22.weren't impressed with that appearance.
:37:22. > :37:26.Imagine the scene, the recession hits, and suddenly it's the rise of
:37:26. > :37:30.the valkaries, scattering all the hunter gatherers in their wake. The
:37:30. > :37:35.women have been able to take the circumstances in their stride, they
:37:35. > :37:39.thrive while men shrivel and quake, unable to adapt. That is the thesis,
:37:39. > :37:44.in a nutshell, of Hanna Rosin's new book, The End of Men. In a molt I
:37:44. > :37:48.will be talking to the author, and the historian, Mary Beard, who
:37:48. > :37:52.disagrees we are becoming a matriarchal society. First a man
:37:52. > :38:01.comfortable in his skin. Stephen Smith. Our island story was once
:38:01. > :38:05.about the great man theory of history, Cromwell, Nelson,
:38:05. > :38:09.Churchill Thatch...you get the idea. In the work place, the man was top
:38:09. > :38:12.dog, earning big wages in traditional metal-bashing
:38:12. > :38:17.industries. It was tough to get a look in as a
:38:17. > :38:21.woman. An ordinary dinner party. I wonder
:38:21. > :38:24.if the Government should return to the gold standard? I think it
:38:24. > :38:28.should. I think the Government should stay off the gold standard,
:38:28. > :38:32.so that the pound can reach a level that will keep our exports
:38:32. > :38:38.competitive. The lady has foolishly attempted to join the conversation,
:38:38. > :38:44.with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own, what half baked drivel.
:38:44. > :38:50.Women, know your limits. But now look, men are in turn
:38:50. > :38:55.around, the Hary Bikers are on a diet. What about Aussie sports
:38:55. > :39:01.legend, Shane Warne, whisper it, he uses product.
:39:01. > :39:08.Never mind the great man of history, men are history, period, or so says
:39:08. > :39:13.a new book. In China women own more than 40% of businesses. By 2008,
:39:13. > :39:17.working-class women in America had a higher median income than the men.
:39:17. > :39:24.And the number of women with six- figure incomes is rising at a much
:39:25. > :39:30.faster rate than it is for men. In the shadow of West Ham United's
:39:30. > :39:37.ground in East London, we called in at a Working Men's Club to discuss
:39:37. > :39:43.Hanna Rosin's book. These fans of the Irons, turned out to be dab
:39:43. > :39:49.hands at pressing their shirts. Are you pretty tastey with an iron?
:39:49. > :39:54.pretty good. Did you do that? Nice piece of work, if I may say so.
:39:54. > :40:02.You can say it. All the industry around here is finished, the docks
:40:02. > :40:08.all closed down. Do you think, that look like the book for me? No. It
:40:08. > :40:13.just doesn't seem my type of book. A bit heavy? Probably very heavy, I
:40:13. > :40:23.should think. To go through this, I would probably get a little bit,
:40:23. > :40:28.you know, here we go! Journalist, Nicholas Lezzard, has written about
:40:28. > :40:32.the trials of modern manhood, are we washed up? I like to think I'm
:40:32. > :40:37.still good for getting a spider out of the bath, changing a lightbulb
:40:37. > :40:43.or blown fuse. That is where you come into your own? Absolutely,
:40:43. > :40:49.yeah. Real crises like that! Never mind being sacked and not having
:40:49. > :40:54.any money, this is where the real stuff is. I still class myself as
:40:54. > :40:58.the master of my house. I don't class myself as demeaning myself by
:40:58. > :41:02.doing tasks. I'm helping my wife out, because my wife is going to
:41:02. > :41:07.work and being the bread winner, basically. What will your missus
:41:07. > :41:17.say when she watches this tonight, if she does, what will she say?
:41:17. > :41:18.
:41:18. > :41:24.Superstar! No, she'll just probably have a chuckle to herself, I should
:41:24. > :41:31.think. I'm joined by the author of The End
:41:31. > :41:36.of Men, Hanna Rosin, and the Cambridge professor, Mary Beard.
:41:36. > :41:42.You are suggesting there is no way back from this, Industrial Society
:41:42. > :41:46.has changed, and men as hunter gatherers is doomed? It is about
:41:46. > :41:50.women adapting to the new economy and men having a harder time doing
:41:50. > :41:54.that. It is getting the degrees and credentials they need, and men are
:41:54. > :42:01.stuck. Men are rabbits in the headlights and women are already
:42:01. > :42:05.there, because they have had so many jobs in the house? It is also
:42:05. > :42:09.because they have been marginalised, they are like immigrants, they
:42:09. > :42:15.hustle and feel like they get paid less than men, they are working
:42:15. > :42:19.twice as hard, and afraid to fall through the cracks. I think Hanna,
:42:19. > :42:22.in a funny way, are on the same side. We both think things are
:42:22. > :42:26.changing. If things weren't changing for women, the feminist
:42:26. > :42:32.movement would have done a really bad over the last 50 years. Things
:42:32. > :42:36.are getting better, that is absolutely true. Look at women on
:42:36. > :42:41.the boardrooms and executive positions, they are in a vast
:42:41. > :42:48.minority? I think it is great book, which proves the opposite case for
:42:48. > :42:52.what it has claimed. The The type says that the age of testosterone
:42:52. > :42:56.is decisively over. Well, maybe I just mixed in the wrong circle, but
:42:56. > :43:02.it is not decisively over in my university, it is not decisively
:43:02. > :43:07.over in most work places. We see horrible examples every day, in
:43:07. > :43:11.fact, in the way the day of testosterone is still alive and
:43:11. > :43:15.well. Hanna's point is women necessarily doing things in a
:43:15. > :43:18.different way are picking up the testosterone themselves? You can
:43:18. > :43:22.have a huge amount of social upheaval and things look the same
:43:22. > :43:28.at the top. People say look at the corporate boards. I travel my
:43:28. > :43:31.country and it is a world turned upside down. In very conservative
:43:31. > :43:34.places where people are not feminist, you have a large number
:43:34. > :43:39.of women supporting their families, not because they are feminists,
:43:39. > :43:43.because they have to. I think what you are suggesting in the book, far
:43:43. > :43:48.from being an asset is the man who irons their shirts, men are just a
:43:48. > :43:52.burden in the house? That is what I think, rather brilliantly proven
:43:52. > :43:57.time and again in the book. You get these awful slobs who are
:43:57. > :44:04.exploiting, yet again, the female of the species. I think it is easy
:44:04. > :44:09.enough to cite statistics, and say, look, men's unemployment has risen
:44:09. > :44:15.faster than women'sen employment in the recession. In some ways that's
:44:15. > :44:18.true, but it always negligents the way that -- neglects wait that
:44:18. > :44:22.women are always in the disadvantaged careers. Would you
:44:22. > :44:26.say that through history? They are working part-time, women have
:44:26. > :44:32.always been in those professions that are undervalued, easy to
:44:32. > :44:41.ignore, easy to cut. We can say, these poor old working-class.
:44:41. > :44:48.about the real matriarchyy? It is patriarchy's myth. Every patriarchy
:44:48. > :44:52.has always said, do you know what men, the one thing to fear is
:44:52. > :44:56.matriarchy, most of all, they say once spon a time women ruled the
:44:56. > :45:02.world and made a fright -- once upon a time women ruled the world
:45:02. > :45:08.and made a frightful mess of it. Now they pick up on Hanna and say,
:45:08. > :45:12.women are about to rule the world. That is an eccentric definition of
:45:12. > :45:15.matriarchy, you have large swathes of society where where the women
:45:15. > :45:18.are raising the children and earning the money. I don't think it
:45:18. > :45:21.is a good thing, it is not that pleasant, it means that the women
:45:21. > :45:25.are doing everything and the men are dropping out and not being
:45:25. > :45:30.fathers. There is a chapter in the book with the see-saw partnership,
:45:30. > :45:36.and the see-saw marriage, a 20th century thing, at different times
:45:36. > :45:39.the men are the bread winners and then the women. The Obamas have had
:45:39. > :45:44.that marriage, she was a healthcare executive when she was at law
:45:44. > :45:50.school and then they switched place. Is that a professional thing?
:45:50. > :45:57.is a professional thing. I divide the book between elite college-
:45:57. > :46:02.educated marriages and everyone else's marriages. It is not a
:46:02. > :46:07.triumphalist feminist book, most of it is not good. The poor old woman
:46:07. > :46:11.who falls asleep between floor one and floor four in the book because
:46:12. > :46:16.she was so knackered. Likewise the 40% of the women working in this
:46:16. > :46:20.country are working in low-paid, part-time jobs, they are supporting
:46:20. > :46:25.their families. 20% of families are, and it is thankless. And you know,
:46:25. > :46:28.there might be a certain definition on, which we might call that
:46:28. > :46:32.matriarchy, it is not the definition that makes any sense to
:46:32. > :46:37.me. Who said it was a utopian dream, it just means a sense of control
:46:37. > :46:41.and lack of dependance, that is the big historical shift, women were
:46:41. > :46:45.once dependant on men, now if the men drop out, the women by
:46:46. > :46:51.necessity are independent. What should happen, then, in the rust
:46:51. > :46:55.belt where women are picking up and taking menial jobs, the husbands,
:46:55. > :46:58.having been these big welders, won't do, there will have to be an
:46:58. > :47:02.evolution of these men? Yes, I don't think they are genetically
:47:02. > :47:07.incapable of evolving, there have been many periods in history, after
:47:07. > :47:11.World War II, when the Americans men came back, they went to school,
:47:11. > :47:16.there was the GI belt, it wasn't like they were incapable, they are,
:47:16. > :47:19.it just isn't now. Women are going into things like nursing, in ever-
:47:19. > :47:23.larger numbers, the only trouble is, they are squeezing the women out.
:47:23. > :47:28.Thank you very much. I'm sure we will talk about this long after we
:47:28. > :47:38.come off air. That is it from us in our new home in Broadcasting House.
:47:38. > :47:50.
:47:50. > :48:00.From all of us, a very good night. From all of us, a very good night.
:48:00. > :48:01.
:48:01. > :48:05.I will be back tomorrow night. On the anniversary of a great storm
:48:05. > :48:09.of 1987, I'm not expecting a repeat performance. It will stay pretty
:48:09. > :48:12.damp across parts of zone Scotland on the far north of England
:48:12. > :48:19.throughout much of the way. Elsewhere sunshine, it will be very
:48:19. > :48:24.windy for a time across parts of the Midlands and central England.
:48:24. > :48:27.Lots of sunshine across the south, temperatures not doing too badly,
:48:27. > :48:31.14-15 grease, the odd rogue shower, dry nearly everywhere, it would
:48:31. > :48:35.have been a very windy start to the day across a good part of Wales.
:48:35. > :48:40.The strongest of the wind will tend to subside later on. It will keep a
:48:40. > :48:44.lot of sunshine going, the odd dot of blue, a few isolated showers.
:48:44. > :48:48.Northern Ireland, after a damp start, things should dry out to
:48:48. > :48:53.some extent, keeping cloud here. Disappointing low cool. It will be
:48:53. > :48:56.a chilly day across Scotland, despite a frosty start.
:48:56. > :48:59.Temperatures not getting high, bleak and damp across Scotland.
:48:59. > :49:04.Further ahead into Wednesday, the weather will not be settling down.
:49:04. > :49:08.More wind and rain spreading across many parts of the UK, from south to
:49:09. > :49:11.north, following in southern areas by something brighter, even then