cheaper than anywhere else but tasting better?

We're all familiar with the idea that cheap food probably isn't going to taste too good and that we have to pay a premium for the yummiest, but just occasionally you can get food that tastes better AND is cheaper. It doesn't happen often, but for example Waitrose now have shortbread that tastes like shortbread should do but is only £1. Proper shortbread tastes divine but you can't find it often. When I go to Liverpool I often go to the cafe of the Museum of Liverpool where they have good shortbread but it's a lot more than £1.

Also when I go to Liverpool I go to Eat 4 Less at 3 Richmond Street. They do baguettes there which are incredibly cheap but taste better than anyone else's. I think they're 99p or £1 but they are generous with the numerous fillings which taste great. Their baguettes seem to be freshly baked too. I get the egg mayonnaise with cress baguette and also the brie baguette. I ask them to do the brie one without cranberry and they make that for me. The brie always seems nicely ripened too.

ASDA do 4 egg custard tarts for £1. Some other supermarkets do too, but ASDAs custard tarts taste wonderful. The pastry is lovely and they put lots of nutmeg on top.

My favourite coffee is filter coffee and so I just love Pret A Manger filter coffee for 99p. Why would I spend more than twice as much on a latte or cappuccino that I wouldn't enjoy so much? I do get a latte from Waitrose when I go in for my shortbread because it's FREE. If you've got a Waitrose card it's free.

The other thing I love is Lancashire Farm yogurt. You can get this from a number of supermarkets. It's about £1.40 for a big 1kg tub. They call it Natural Probiotic which is what we used to call live yogurt. I think it tastes better than other yogurts. They also do a low-fat version, I've tried it but I can't say I like it as much.

If you've got any examples of foods that taste better than everywhere else and yet are cheaper than anywhere else please tell us about it and comment.

Michael Mosley, the Daily Mail, and saturated fat

When I was listening to late-night radio recently they started to discuss an article in the Daily Mail about saturated fat and heart disease. The article was written by Dr Michael Mosley. The presenter said that he didn't realize that pasta and potatoes are bad for you.

I took a good look at the article because I thought what he wrote is wrong. This is what he wrote.

"My response was to exercise more but it had little effect. I was eating less fat, but compensating with starchy pasta and potatoes. What I hadn't appreciated is the way these foods act on your body. A boiled potato will push your blood glucose up almost as fast as a tablespoon of sugar, since it is rapidly digested.
Ironically, we now know that if you eat that potato with butter, the fat will slow absorption and the blood sugar peak will be less extreme.
Rapid spikes in glucose force your pancreas to pump out insulin, which drives it back down, but can leave you hungry again a few hours later.
Carbohydrates are also less satiating than fat or protein. So you eat more and the weight creeps up."

Pasta has a low Glycemic Index which means that it doesn't push your blood glucose up. So he's got that wrong. As for potatoes, some potatoes have a high GI and some a low GI. New potatoes have a low or moderate GI. Nowhere in the article does he mention the Glycemic Index. He doesn't seem to understand what it is.

If you have potato with olive oil it will have a lower GI. Extra virgin olive oil from Lidl or Aldi are cheaper than butter. Despite the recent evidence about the relationship between saturated fats and heart disease, it still seems that olive oil is healthier than butter.

It has never been the case that health advisors have said all fats are bad and all carbohydrates are good. We have known for a long time that olive oil is a healthy oil as is fish oil. So why is Dr Michael Mosley trying to make out that this is what people were lead to believe? Is it because he seems to want to make the opposite argument that all fats are good and all carbohydrates are bad? That is what he seems to be saying.

It is true that protein can suppress appetite. It is not true though that low GI starchy foods like pasta and long-grain rice are less satiating than fat. So I don't agree that people are likely to put on weight by eating pasta, long-grain rice or porridge instead of butter. In any case they can have olive oil instead of butter. So butter is still not the best option.

He mentions research that shows olive oil and fish oil are healthy, and then goes on to mention the recent research funded by the British Heart Foundation and published this year. Mosley says 'the researchers found no evidence that saturated fats cause heart disease'.

What the evidence from this study seems to be saying is that we have to look at each individual fatty acid instead of looking at groups of fatty acids such as saturated, monounsaturated, omega-6 and omega-3. DHA and EPA, two long-chain omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil, are both linked to lower heart risk. No surprise there. But so is AA, which is an omega-6 fatty acid.

At least, when these three fatty acids are found in good quantities in the blood, there is a lower heart risk. Yet the study 'also found no significant link between heart risk and intake of total monounsaturated fatty acids, long-chain omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids'. Which is curious. If you have more of them in your blood you are less likely to die of a heart attack, and yet consuming DHA and EPA in the form of fish or fish oil doesn't seem to have a beneficial effect? What are we to make of this?

"They also looked in detail at saturated fatty acids. Here, they found some weak links between bloodstream levels of palmitic and stearic acids (predominantly found in palm oil and animal fats, respectively) and heart disease, but blood levels of the dairy fat margaric acid appeared to significantly reduce heart risk."

It could well be that fat from most meat is bad for you but fat from milk isn't. Pork fat has more monounsaturated fat that beef fat and so is considered healthier. Goose fat might be healthier too. Coconut oil, despite being saturated, seems to be healthy. So the question is not fat versus carbohydrate. We should be consuming good fats and good carbohydrates and refraining from bad fats and bad carbohydrates. I get most of my calories from low GI starches such as long-grain rice and pasta. If people want to get most of their calories from both low GI starches and healthy fats such as olive oil, fish oil, and avocados then that's good too. The fat in cheese might be good, but I don't think burgers are something I would want to consume every day. But then I'm not going to consume margarine or sunflower oil either.

It's not a question of fat v carbohydrate, and it's not a question of saturated fat v polyunsaturated fat. We know that lots of polyunsaturated fat if it is nearly all omega-6 isn't good for health. There should be a balance between omega-6 and omega-3 which means we should have less omega-6 (from vegetable oils like sunflower oil) and more omega-3 (especially long-chain omega-3 from fish). Now it seems that some saturated fatty acids can be good too.

So when the research shows that cutting saturated fat per se doesn't do anything for our health and that consuming more polyunsaturated fat per se doesn't do anything for our health either, that doesn't mean that there aren't some saturates we should avoid or that there aren't some polyunsaturates we should have more of.

There's an interesting New Scientist article that says a lot of the same things as I'm saying.

the cost of calories

I came across this page on the Food Commission site. They claim to be 'Britain's leading, independent watchdog on food issues'. They have a chart similar to my own, except that they miss out the most important foods, the starchy staples. This gives a completely misleading impression, making it seem that it is the unhealthy foods that are the cheapest.

They have fallen into the trap of the false dichotomy, talking as if the only two alternatives are fatty sugary foods on the one hand and cabbages and carrots on the other. As they say on this page:-

Keeping hunger pangs at bay without stretching your budget is simple if you like fatty, sugary food. By comparison, cabbages and carrots are a very poor bargain - you can spend a small fortune on salad and fruit and still feel hungry.

This is what the table should look like, after the cheapest foods have been inserted and with the information updated from 2007 prices to 2014 prices, all from Lidl. They are using a different measure, the cost of 100 calories in pence, which is different from the measure I used of calories per penny. Anything cheaper than 14.5p per 100 calories (7 calories per penny) is deemed as affordable to low income families.

Foodstuffs	Cost of 100 calories in pence
Long-grain rice	1.2
Spaghetti	1.3
Vegetable oil	1.3
Digestive biscuits	1.6
Custard cream biscuits	1.8
Sugar	2.0
Porridge	2.1
Extra virgin olive oil	3.2
Couscous	3.6

How I worked out the cost of 100 calories
Long-grain rice: 40p per kilo: 3,510 kcals per kilo: 40/35.1=1.139
Spaghetti: 46p per kilo: 3,500 kcals per kilo: 46/35=1.314
Vegetable oil: £1.09 per litre: 8,280 kcals per litre: 109/82.8=1.316
Digestive biscuits (Tower Gate): 31p per 400g pack: 4,990 kcals per kilo: 77.5/49.9=1.553
Custard cream biscuits: 35p per 400g pack: 4,950 kcals per kilo: 87.5/49.5=1.767
Sugar: 79p per kilo: 4,000 kcals per kilo: 79/40=1.975
Porridge: 39p per 500g: 3,750 kcals per kilo: 78/37.5=2.08
Extra virgin olive oil (Primadonna): £1.99 per 750ml: 8,210 kcals per litre: 199/61.575=3.23
Couscous: £1.35 per kilo: 3,750 kcals per kilo: 135/37.5=3.6

The next one in the original Food Commission table is Frozen sausages which costs 4.3p per 100 calories. I haven't bothered with all of the other ones lower down in the table because it would take too long to collect the data and do the calculations. The point is that there are plenty of healthy calories available at a cheap price. Rice and spaghetti are cheaper than biscuits and even sugar, with porridge and couscous not far behind.

Other candidates for cheap calories are yellow split peas, polenta and chapatti flour. Lidl don't sell these and most people don't know what to do with them or they take some time to prepare. Chapatti flour at £4 for 10 kilos (or sometimes less) is as cheap as the rice, which is the cheapest in the table. Yellow split peas are probably the cheapest source of protein, cheaper than any meat or cheese, and also do well as a source of cheap calories.

I might add that a 1kg bag of frozen mixed vegetables cost 75p, which doesn't come out well in the pennies per 100 calories stakes but you don't buy vegetables for the calories and they are still affordable. Salad and fruit don't give many calories, they add micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, lutein etc) and flavour, and bulk out food.

Having said that, vegetables such as potatoes, frozen peas and frozen sweetcorn can compare favourably to many common processed foods even in terms of calories per penny or price per 100 calories. Only the sweetcorn is outside the target 14.5p per 100 calories and only just.
Potatoes: £4.29 per 7.5 kilo: 820 kcals per kilo: 57.2/8.2=7
Frozen Garden Peas or Petit Pois: 99p per kilo: 750 kcals per kilo: 99/7.5=13.2
Frozen Supersweet Corn: £1.40 per kilo: 910 kcals per kilo: 140/9.1=15.4

Tesco potatoes, peas and sweetcorn are considerably cheaper than Lidl. I couldn't find any frozen sausages in Lidl but I found some in Tesco. Tesco Everyday Value 20 frozen pork sausages work out at 6.8p per 100 calories. Tesco Everyday Value White Potatoes 2.5Kg work out at 5.6p per 100 calories. So it's cheaper to get calories from potatoes (healthy) than sausages (unhealthy). Tesco Everyday Value Garden Peas work out at 12.4p per 100 calories. Tesco Everyday Value Sweetcorn 907G works out at 9.5p per 100 calories.

When it comes to protein, the sausages give 0.63g of protein per penny. Tesco Everyday Value Chicken Breast Fillets are even worse value for money providing 0.48g of protein per penny. Tesco Yellow Split Peas however provide 2.2g of protein per penny. Even allowing for the fact that plant protein is not as good quality as animal protein, it's clear that no matter how cheap and rubbishy you buy your meat it is never going to be cheap protein. Pulses are cheap protein. Tesco frozen peas provide 0.6g of protein per penny, almost as much as the sausages.

It doesn't matter how rich you are, if you were stupid enough to try and get all your daily calories from cabbages and carrots then you would always go hungry. You should be getting most of your calories (whether you're rich or poor) from low GI starches such as rice and pasta. And they're the cheapest. But the Food Commission aren't going to tell you that. They should be doing that instead of misleading poor people about what they can afford to eat and their health.

Below is a table showing most of the foods I have mentioned above. It shows that rice and pasta are the cheapest, and also that some vegetables do well as reasonably cheap sources of calories. Only the Lidl sweetcorn and the Tesco chicken are outside the range of what is deemed affordable. The false dichotomy in use by the Food Commission and others is wrong, not only because they leave out starchy staples such as rice and pasta, but also because not all vegetables are low in calories.

Supermarket	Foodstuffs	Cost of 100 calories in pence
Lidl	Long-grain rice	1.2
Lidl	Spaghetti	1.3
Lidl	Vegetable oil	1.3
Lidl	Digestive biscuits	1.6
Lidl	Custard cream biscuits	1.8
Lidl	Sugar	2.0
Lidl	Porridge	2.1
Tesco	Natco Fine corn meal (polenta)	3.2
Lidl	Extra virgin olive oil	3.2
Tesco	Yellow split peas	3.5
Lidl	Couscous	3.6
Tesco	Everyday Value White potatoes	5.7
Tesco	Everyday Value 20 Pork sausages (frozen)	6.8
Lidl	Potatoes	7.0
Tesco	Everyday Value Sweetcorn (frozen)	9.5
Tesco	Everyday Value Garden peas (frozen)	12.4
Lidl	Garden peas or petit pois (frozen)	13.2
Lidl	Supersweet corn (frozen)	15.4
Tesco	Everyday Value Chicken breast fillets (frozen)	39.9

Instead of talking about two types of food, as happens with this false dichotomy, we should be talking about five different types of food. We should compare their relative merits in terms of cost of calories and protein, and their healthiness. These are the five types of food we need to consider.

1. fatty and/or sugary food, often high in salt too
2. low starch vegetables such as cabbages and carrot, salad and fruit
3. low-GI grains and grain products such as rice, pasta, porridge and polenta
4. dried pulses such as yellow/green split peas, lentils and beans
5. higher starch vegetables such as potatoes, frozen peas and frozen sweetcorn
6. oil

Vegetable oil isn't particularly unhealthy. Any oil can contribute to obesity if you have too much of it. Vegetable oil is low in saturated fat but high in omega-6. This can cause health problems. Rapeseed oil is an exception to this. Refined rapeseed oil is quite cheap, and the unrefined rapeseed oil seems to be coming down in price. Olive oil is low in saturated fat and omega-6. If you buy Lidl Primadonna extra virgin olive oil it is surprisingly cheap. And it has won a taste test, along with Aldi EVOO brand of extra virgin olive oil. Extra virgin olive oil should not be used for frying food.

Bread should be a cheap healthy source of calories. Supermarket sliced white bread doesn't come out well when you calculate the cost of calories. Chapatti flour is possibly the cheapest food of all in terms of cost of calories. I have read that Indian people often prefer to grind their flour at home when they need it because it's fresher and tastes better. It should be healthier too, the oil in the germ is retained but doesn't become rancid, and the particle size is larger which means it has a lower GI. Most people don't know how to make chapattis and wouldn't want the bother, the same applies to loaves.

It looks as if there are eight cheap and healthy foods. Rice, pasta, porridge, polenta, olive oil, yellow split peas, couscous and potatoes. The only unhealthy foods that can match them in price are vegetable oil, biscuits and sugar. All the other foods in the Food Commission table, even cheap frozen pork sausages, can't match them. Even then the rice and pasta beat them.

Arabella Weir talking rubbish about food and poverty

"If you're hungry, and your last 30p will buy you a whole packet of biscuits or one single apple, what would you choose? I believe it is IMPOSSIBLE to eat well if you're poor."

This is what the comedian Arabella Weir stated on the Food & Drink programme on BBC 2 earlier this week. You can see it here. I think she is completely wrong on this issue. Why does she think that biscuits or apples are the only two alternatives? You can buy 3/4 of a kilo of rice for 30p or half a kilo of pasta.

I was in ASDA on Monday and because I knew she was going to say this I looked at the price of biscuits. I couldn't find any packets of biscuits for 30p. I'm sure if someone had the time to shop around they could find biscuits for 30p but the nearest to that in ASDA - which is not one of the more expensive supermarkets - is ASDA smart price Rich Tea biscuits for 31p. The packet weighs 400g and the information on the back says that there are 455 calories in every 100g.

This means that there are 1,820 calories in a pack. Divide that by 31 and you find that the biscuits provide just under 59 calories per penny. Rice provides nearly 88 calories per penny and pasta provides just over 59 calories per penny. There are some supermarkets that sell pasta for less that 30p per half kilo. So rice and pasta are always a better bet because they are cheaper and because they are low GI sources of calories.

One of the people she was debating with said you can buy pulses, rice and lentils cheaply. Lentils are one type of pulse. The quality of this debate is extremely poor - nobody seemed to know what they are talking about. Arabella's smug reply to that is "Have you ever fed children lentils?". What does she think that millions of parents in India feed themselves and their children on? She chose not to mention rice. Pasta is a favourite food for most children, and it doesn't cost much to make pasta palatable.

Her argument doesn't make sense. If the argument is about affordability, then it doesn't make sense to contradict someone who says that lentils (and other pulses and rice) are affordable by saying that children won't eat them. Then it becomes an argument about British children refusing to eat healthy food and how parents respond to that. In most parts of the world children eat what they are given, they're not offered alternatives. If your children refuse to eat healthy food then it doesn't matter how much money you have. If you are poor and you can offer your children healthy food such as rice, pasta and pulses but your children don't like them then the problem is not affordability.

Many people on benefits - pensioners for example - don't have dependent children. People with children receive more in benefits than people who are childless; it's people on Job Seekers Allowance and without children who are the poorest. People who go to food banks are usually people who have had delays in receiving their benefits.

So I don't see why people can't eat lentils. Lentils aren't that cheap though, it's yellow split peas that are the cheap pulses. Both lentils and yellow split peas can be used for soup, for the Indian dish dal, and also for felafels although more often chickpeas are used for that.

The family size frozen lasagna she mentions provides under 10 calories per penny. Iceland sell a 1.6 kg family size frozen lasagna. There's a bit of confusion on their site about how many calories there are in the pack because they state that there are 172 calories (kcals) per 100g but 635 calories per 1/4 pack. 172 x 16 is 2752 but 635 x 4 is 2540. So somewhere Iceland have put incorrect information of their site.

Let's assume the higher figure of 2752. The pack cost £3. 2752/300 gives us the figure of just over 9 calories per penny. So to advise poor people to eat lasagna is extremely poor advice based on an ignorance of the facts. I'm aware that lasagna provides protein as well as calories but most poor people in Britain eat far more protein than they need.

She's wrong in assuming that lasagna is an unhealthy food. The Iceland lasagna isn't particularly unhealthy. It has more pasta in it than the meat and cheese combined, so it doesn't contain that much saturated fat. It does contain some sugar, and it would have been better if it didn't, but it isn't the 50/50 combination of fat and sugar that is the real problem with much processed food.

The recent BBC 2 programme Sugar v Fat was mostly boring but towards the end they showed the results of experiments with rats. Professor Paul Kenny fed rats either fat but no sugar or sugar but no fat. Both these groups restricted the number of calories they ate and didn't put on weight. When he fed rats a 50/50 combination of fat and sugar, however, they overate and became obese. There are two ways to interpret this. Either a 50/50 combination of fat and sugar is particularly alluring. Or when foods are combined we often can't taste all of the different ingredients.

So I don't agree that people become obese because our ancestors on the savanna were always short of food and needed to eat everything they could. People don't actually crave a fatty food or a sugary food that much. They quickly become repulsive, tasting too fatty or too sweet. We do have an 'off' switch for them. The fat/sugar combination is not found in nature and we don't have an 'off' switch for it. This is the biggest problem with processed foods.

Arabella finishes off her piece by saying "So come on, you pretentious foodies, stop lecturing people with less cash than you about what they should be eating!" I'm not a foodie and I live on benefits. Telling poor people - incorrectly - that their best options are biscuits and frozen lasagna is doing exactly what she accuses others of doing, lecturing people with less cash than her about what they should be eating.

a children's favourite

Institute for Fiscal Studies report on food and poverty

"Struggling households are turning to cheaper, fattier food in the wake of the recession." So it says in this newspaper article. This comes from research on food and poverty done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. However, if you look at the report (Food purchases and nutrition over the recession), the facts don't seem so alarming.

The report says there has been an increase in the calorie density of food eaten by 2.6%, less for poorer people. Fat density has increased by 2.4%, less for the poorer people. Sugar density has increased by 2.1%. So we have increases of between 2% and 3%, which doesn't seem to be a big change. What's more salt density has decreased by 7.5% and fibre density has increased by 4.1%, which is quite a good thing. So the food we eat has become slightly fattier and slightly more sugary, but at the same time less salty and with a higher fibre content.

At the same time people have been spending less on food and eating fewer calories. The amount of fat, sugar and salt eaten have been decreasing. One way you can interpret the statistics is to say that people are eating slightly less food overall, eating the same proportion of processed food, but eating cheaper processed food. Cheap processed food does seem to have more fat and sugar than the more expensive processed food.

What people don't seem to be doing is turning to the cheaper less processed foods such as rice and pasta. The assumption that the Institute of Fiscal Studies are making is that calorie dense foods are cheaper. It might well be that a macaroni cheese from Iceland is more calorific and cheaper than the equivalent from Marks and Spencer. However, less processed foods such as rice and pasta are much cheaper than the cheapest processed foods. So to say that the poor have had no option but to turn to more calorie dense foods is wrong.

continent of the pigs

I've been looking for accurate statistics for the number of farm animals for a while, and this page seems to have them. I didn't know that for every one of the 7 billion people on the planet there are almost 3 chickens, 19 billion in total. Chickens are better converters of animal feed (maize and soya) than other farm animals, perhaps especially when they are used for egg production.

There are 1.4 billion cattle. Cattle can eat grass that we can't eat, and some areas can't be used to grow crops but produce grass. Many cattle, perhaps the majority these days, are kept in feed lots and fed animal feed. There are 1 billion sheep. As far as I know sheep only eat grass although they might get a supplement of feed.

There are 1 billion pigs on the planet. They are not efficient converters of animal feed like chickens, neither can they eat grass like cattle and sheep can. Traditionally, pigs were fed on food that we can't eat, waste food or stale food. Nearly all pigs today are fed on a high-calorie high-protein diet consisting mostly of maize and soya. Pigs are about the same size as us, and I think they are the best example of how crops are being wasted by being fed to farm animals.

A billion is a big number. If you think about the entire population of North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America combined, that doesn't come to a billion. If you think about the 6 giant cities in the Americas, each of which is bigger than any city in Europe, it makes you think. The global population of pigs is bigger than the entire human population of the Americas.

Of course we do end up eating the pigs, and they do sometimes eat what we would not want to. Nobody would want to eat pig food, but people have been eating maize and soya for thousands of years and enjoying it, along with wheat, barley and fish. Fish, especially anchovies, form part of animal feed. This is no way to feed the world.

According to the Economist site, in China there are 0.35 pigs per person. So for every 3 people there's a pig. No wonder they have to import grain. That's 451,000,000 pigs. In Denmark there are 2.24 pigs for every person, the only country where there are more pigs than people. There is no geographical reason why this should be so. Denmark is nowhere near where maize and soya are produced. You could understand it if countries like America, Brazil or Argentina had that ratio of pigs to people. I imagine vast fleets of ships carrying animal feed from the eastern coasts of North and South America to northern Europe. It seems a strange way of doing things, but then the global agricultural system has never made much sense.

Imagine a maize and soya farm in Brazil. Imagine if most of the maize and soya was exported to feed people, but some of it kept on the farm to feed a relatively small number of free-range pigs. Pig slurry was put back onto the land. The pigs could be slaughtered on site. Livers could be frozen and exported. Ham and bacon could be made on site providing employment and exported. Seems sensible to me, so sensible that you kind of know that nothing like this happens or will ever happen.

Instead we have pigs, one of the most intelligent animals, kept in horrible conditions. Slurry that can't be disposed of. New viruses and antibiotic resistant bacteria breeding away. One eighth of the world's population starving while an equal number grow fat. It's crazy, and no amount of GM technology or badger killing is going to make it better.

instant noodles

I listened to the recent episode of Thinking Allowed on Radio 4. Laurie Taylor was talking to Deborah Gewertz about her book on instant noodles.

She had this to say.

"... they will allow poor people to be sustained in contexts of extreme poverty. I would very much like a world in which extreme poverty did not exist but it does and it looks like it's going to get worse as the population of the world increases to 9 to 10 billion by 2050 and the question that we contemplate in our book is how are these people going to be fed. Of course we would love it if people had healthy food to eat but since it's not likely that poverty will decrease instant noodles will remain a proletarian hunger killer."

The problem with this is that if you do the calculation and work out how many calories per penny instant noodles provide then it isn't much compared to other foods.

Tesco Everyday Value chicken flavour instant noodles cost 15p for a 65g pack that has 260 calories.
Lidl long-grain white rice costs 40p for 1kg and has 3,510 calories.
Lidl organic whole-grain farfalle costs 99p for 500g and has 1,685 calories.

instant noodles: about 17 kcals/p
rice: about 88 kcals/p
organic whole-grain pasta: about 17 kcals/p

This means that rice provides more than 5 times the number of calories per penny as instant noodles, whereas the very much healthier organic whole-grain pasta is slightly cheaper. So it is wrong for Deborah Gewertz to state that poor people can't afford to eat healthier food than instant noodles. It is not only wrong but it is misleading people into making poor choices about how to feed their families and keep them healthy.

It is possible that instant noodles may be cheaper in some parts of the world than in Britain, but I wouldn't expect the relative price of instant noodles and rice to be much different. I think since writing this the cost of Tesco noodles is now 20p which makes them even less value for money. Looking at the information on the back of packets of noodles, it does seem that there is some confusion over how many calories they have. I'm going on the information provided on the Tesco site. It may turn out that instant noodles may be a bit cheaper than organic whole-grain pasta, but there is no doubt they are more expensive than rice.

instant noodles

Deborah Gewertz is one of many people who believe that unhealthy food is cheapest, and that's why poor people eat it. They all seem to disagree on what it is that poor people are condemned to eat. She believes that it is instant noodles. Danish food writer Katrine Klinken believes that is it cheese and butter. Zoe Williams and some of her fellow Guardian journalists believe it is burgers and crisps. They have all got it wrong, and it is easy to show that this is true. Just by looking at the facts. If anyone deserves to be likened to Marie Antoinette it is these three women, not people like me.

They seem to believe that poverty in Britain today is the same as poverty in Britain decades ago or poverty in countries like India today. It isn't. Nobody today is in the same situation as mining families in the 1920s. The problem with all these people is that they have to believe in one extreme or the other. There are some people who believe that poor people are totally responsible for the situation they find themselves in. They tend to be on the right of the Conservative Party. Then there are others who believe in the exact opposite, that poor people have absolutely no control over what happens to them whatsoever. They tend to be on the left of the Labour Party. They think poor people are victims, and that to suggest there are ways to eat more healthily and spend less money is blaming the victim.

The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. We can all learn more about nutrition. We can all learn what we need to eat and what we can cut back on.