You live in a dream world where big business does not spending millions upon millions on advertising, government lobbying and public relation specialists. to create an environment where their products dominant regardless of consequences, its profits which is their only law.

will blake, london, england

"The food industry is currently fighting against the use of
traffic light labelling"

Quite right too. No single product has "too much sugar" in it. You have a recommended daily intake of sugar, and a single product represents a certain proportion of that. Whether the product is 'good' or 'bad' sits therefore sits within an overall context of what you're eating that day.

By pretending you can reduce that to a single colour code follows the fallacy that because information might be difficult to understand then it must be explained as if to an idiot. In fact, people need only to be presented with the facts and it's up to their judgement how to handle those facts. You belong in the category of "people who think other people are stupider than they and need protecting from themselves." Which is the absolute, central bane of current thinking in this country.

And no, I don't work in the food or retail industry.

Paul Carpenter, Leeds, UK

I have never smoked although my father, who died at age 62 of a heart attack smoked 60 a day. Why have I never smoked? Because as a child when I was offered a cigarette at school, it made me cough and my eyes watered so I came to the obvious conclusion that my body was telling me something. We are not meant to smoke! My wife has never smoked and neither have my four children and now their children because we discussed the dangers, and the stupidity of many humans who are unable to make informed decisions.

I get a commercial hamburger as a "treat" about once every 3 months because my wife always cooks our meals with fresh vegetables and the right healthy foods. TV dinners are never bought. Educating the young is the answer but the problem starts with the parents who seem unable to make sensible decisions based on common sense and available information.

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

Completely agree, it seems that corporations are falling over themselves to the first with a new initiative when the latest media campaign kicks in. The 'global warming' hysteria the latest.
Why people are so keen to blame large companies for all of societies problems I don't know. They employ hundreds of thousands of people, transform run down areas, improve products and services, make donations to charities, create wealth for the country, and pay billions in tax.
Come on Tesco, Microsoft, Macdonalds, Diageo,Nestle etc, shout about the good things you do instead of hiding behind shallow initiatives.

Mark Mortimer, Hangzhou, China

Generally, I'd agree with this article.

However, it is also the case that many food companies, for example, have sought to deceive us with the labelling and composition of their products. For example, "90% fat free" in fact means that a product is not fat free at all. Hydrogenated fats are known to be harmful, yet producers hide its presence in small print. "no artificial sweeteners" often means it contains glucose-friuctose syrup (which does not occur naturally). "Low fat" is used to imply lower calorie whereas often extra sugar is added instead raising calorie content.

My wife recently bought a brand name seeded batch loaf which goes on about the healthy content and is brown in colour. Only the small print reveals that it is, in fact, white bread. This was deliberate deception.

HJ, Reading, UK

I see the first comments are, predictably, from the thought police brigade. Nothing about lazy people who would rather microwave a mess of unknown ingredients than peel a potato or wash a carrot!

The alcohol industry is the most telling example. We all know that excess alcohol is bad for us. But why is that France produces more alcohol than Britain ever will and yet I can spend three weeks on holiday there without seeing a single drunk staggering around the streets, even after the bars close?

So much for education, education, education. I hear Gordon is to up the school leaving age to 18. Perhaps we could use that extra education to tell people what food is and how to cook and eat it instead of blindly following the easiest route to the microwave.

KR, Stockport,

This article does raise some interesting points. In particular, a commercially available product may have many different possible uses, some of which are more risky for the user and less beneficial overall.

In particular, I was thinking of John's comment about "traffic-light" labelling of food. I carry glucose tablets (and/or chocolate) when taking cross-country hikes and when driving (as low blood sugar can lead to lack of energy and lack of attention). What is the correct "traffic-light" labelling for the sugar level of glucose tablets and chocolate?

Nigel Sedgwick, Beaconsfield, UK

I dont really get the British people. For example if the government anounce that they are consider raising revenue for taxes through driving or drinking or smoking under the justification that it is in the nations interest. The British people lap it up. My view is that I don't drive excessive distances to commute and dont have a obesity, smoking or alcohol related dependency. Therefore the above increases in goods basic value are just an additional tax I have to pay for the absent minded. When are we required to take responsibility for ourselves?

John, Egremont, Cumrbia

Of course companies refuse to defend themselves publicly when campaigners fire untrue allegations at them. Their only conduit is the Media, whose style (you said it yourself) is not to engage but to criticise, demand, and oppose.

The wonder is not that the Media is held in greater contempt than politicians (Times excluded of course), but that it has arrived at this position without ever being on the receiving-end of a media-blitz. Unfortunately, contempt seems not to translate into lack of influence; the steady drip of drivel has us all humming a tune we can't stand.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

In response to Jamie

If a product is not labelled to your standards, then do not buy it.

Does that put the responsibility on you simply enough?

Dominic, Manchester, UK

The food industry is currently fighting against the use of
traffic light labelling. This is the most simple and
effective way of showing when the level of fat or sugar is
excessive. If, say, the level of sugar is too high the amount
is shown on a red backgound. If, it is low it is shown on
a green background. The food industry would simply prefer
a full listing shown in very small print so as to make it
as difficult as possible for the consumer to know if
the levels of fat or sugar is excessive.

John, LONDON,

Companies will happily sell us something that is bad for us. Left to themselves they won't give us the basic information that allows us to realise it is bad for us - why would they? Companies would not have clearly labelled their food without government legislation and the perceived threat of more to follow. Now it is labelled, the individual can choose.

There is no dichotomy between corporate responsibility and individual responsibility - corporations are responsible for giving individuals the information they need to make the decisions for which they are responsible.

Jamie Gilmour, Bolton, UK