Fear UK consumers are more exposed to cancer-causing food because of Brexit
Fears have been raised that Brexit has left British consumers more exposed to food that can give them cancer because the UK has failed to keep up with EU standards since leaving the bloc.
Hopes are high that if Keir Starmer agrees to align the UK to EU rules and regulations in his Brexit reset deal to be unveiled on Monday, then the exposure to carcinogenic nitrites in bacon and ham can be removed.
But the concerns are reflected in a new J.L Partners poll that not only revealed more than two-thirds (69 per cent) of Brits fear the UK is falling behind European food standards but the worries are shared by even 55 per cent of pro-Brexit 2024 Reform voters.
Stricter EU rules limiting the amount of nitrites permitted in bacon and ham come into force in October - but the UK is currently permitting higher levels of the carcinogenic chemicals in its processed meat.
The issue has been taken up by a group of the world's leading scientists, who have joined representatives from seven political parties, including a former UK health minister, to call for carcinogenic nitrites to be removed from processed meats.
In 2015, the World Health Organisation (WHO) classified processed meats as a Group One carcinogen - the same classification as tobacco - and attributed an estimated 34,000 global colorectal cancer deaths a year to diets high in processed meats.
The Coalition Against Nitrites, a new non-profit organisation, launched this week with the backing of three former WHO scientists, a Harvard professor, and the UK's top food safety expert.
Experts backing the campaign include Professor Paolo Vineis from Imperial College London, Professor Denis Corpet from Toulouse University and Professor Robert Turesky from the University of Minnesota.
Other scientific supporters include Professor Walter Willett of Harvard University, who is widely regarded as the world's most influential nutritionist, and Professor Chris Elliott, who founded the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen's University Belfast and led the UK Government's investigation into the 2013 horse meat scandal.
Political supporters of the campaign include Conservative ex-health minister Lord Bethell, Labour's former shadow health minister Sharon Hodgson MP, DUP health spokesman Jim Shannon MP, former Green Party leader Baroness Bennett, former Deputy Mayor of London Baroness Jones, and the former leader of the SDLP, Baroness Ritchie.
Professor Chris Elliott said: 'The UK's departure from the EU has meant we have slipped behind European food standards. The addition of nitrites to processed meats is a major example of what has happened.
'While the EU has sought to protect its consumers with better food safety rules, the UK has dithered, leaving British consumers at greater risk. It is essential the UK keeps pace with the EU's improving food safety rules for the sake of public health.'
Professor Walter Willet from the Harvard School of Public Health, added: 'It is time for governments globally to step in and ban the use of these chemicals - or for food producers to make the right decision for human health and remove these dangerous chemicals themselves from their products.'
The UK Food Standards Agency has previously claimed that nitrites are 'essential' to protect against botulism.
It states: 'Nitrites and nitrates (E 249 – E 252) are used in certain cheeses and processed meats such as bacon, ham, corned beef and other cured meats to help keep it looking red and to aid the development of the 'cured' flavour. However, their main role is to reduce the growth of harmful microorganisms in particular clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can be life threatening.'
However, the EU has recently tightened regulations on the use of nitrites as food additives in processed meats, lowering the levels at which they are legally permitted to be added. Food businesses have been granted a two-year period to adapt to these new limits, with the regulations becoming fully applicable from October 2025.
The French government has already acknowledged the health risks associated with nitrites in processed meats and has initiated measures to reduce their usage. In March 2023, it unveiled an action plan aiming for an immediate reduction of nitrite additives in deli meats by approximately 20 per cent.
Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, a former shadow health minister, said: 'Knowing what we know today about the health risks of added nitrites, it's time for a serious conversation about the safety of our food.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Cambridge University ‘discriminates' against white job seekers
The University of Cambridge has been accused of discriminating against white job seekers. Guidance issued at the world-leading university advises departments to 'try to ensure' that at least one candidate from 'underrepresented groups' is invited for every interview. The 'diverse recruitment framework' further encourages recruiters to readvertise positions if the longlist of candidates 'is not diverse', is all white or male. The guidance, currently in use at the university, also says interview panels should be 'diverse both in gender and race' and composed of individuals who have taken training courses in equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI) and unconscious bias. Edward Skidelsky, the lecturer in philosophy at the University of Exeter and director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, said the policies were 'tantamount to discrimination against white applicants'. 'This is one of the worst cases we have come across of EDI interference in what should be a purely academic process,' he said. 'Favouritism towards women and non-whites demeans them, and encourages the very prejudices it is intended to overcome.' Documents seen by The Telegraph show the guidance, first issued in 2019, is copied word for word in 'hiring instructions' sent to academics involved in recruitment processes at the university. The framework advises academics that recruitment panels should not be made up entirely of 'white males' or 'people with a particular career track record'. It reads: 'Conduct the shortlisting with more than one person on the panel, ideally forming the panel that is diverse both in gender and race if possible. 'Research shows that when the final applicant pool has only one minority candidate, they are unlikely to be offered the position: try to ensure that more than one candidate from under-represented groups is invited to [the] interview stage. 'If the longlist is not diverse, you do not have to appoint someone immediately, consider readvertising the position to encourage a more diverse shortlist.' Elsewhere, it says all members of recruitment panels 'must have completed the online University modules on E&D [equality and diversity] and Understanding Unconscious Bias'. Those involved in hiring decisions are also told to 'reflect' on the university's EDI commitments, 'their own biases' and the potential for 'implicit bias' before interviews and after selecting a favoured candidate. A source familiar with the workings of Cambridge's EDI committee said members were told 'don't worry about it' when they raised questions about the policies' legality. The source said: 'I joined the committee, wanting to see what was actually going on and maybe prevent things from going off the rails. 'When I got there, I discovered it was already off the rails.' The source added: 'If you criticise it, you're just seen as a bad person.' They went on to claim they had witnessed colleagues from non-underrepresented backgrounds – such as white people and men – being actively discouraged from applying to positions because of their race or sex. A spokesman for Cambridge denied that applicants were told this, saying it was 'not a view held by the university, relevant committees or senior management and is directly prohibited in law and our own policies'. Prof David Abulafia, the professor emeritus of Mediterranean history at the University of Cambridge, said the guidance was 'arrant nonsense'. He said: 'The sheer fanaticism of the bureaucracy at Cambridge and the craven submission of academics to their arrant nonsense spells the end of a once great university.' Prof John Marenbon, the philosopher and fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, added: 'Academic appointments should be made solely on the basis of academic merit. Academics who do otherwise betray their calling.' The university's EDI 'plan for action' includes a target to increase ethnic minority applications to 'academic and research posts to 8 per cent or higher' and 'for professional services roles to 30 per cent'. A spokesman for the University of Cambridge said: 'Every candidate is recruited based on merit. We have no quotas for staff recruitment and strongly refute claims of discriminating against white and male job applicants 'Our 'diverse recruitment framework' is a guidance document aimed at ensuring that all suitably qualified candidates are encouraged to apply for roles at Cambridge – not to dictate the outcome of recruitment. 'Use of this guidance, including training recommendations, is not mandated in our recruitment policy.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Letting banks loose is back on the agenda as UK politicians chase growth at any cost
As the old ways of turning a profit become more difficult – from assembling cars to selling soap powder – politicians of all stripes want the City to inject some dynamism into the economy. From Labour to Reform, the siren call of London's financial district is strong. If only, they ask, the wheels of the banking industry could be cranked to spin faster, surely much more money could be generated and we would all be rich. While Rachel Reeves boasted of the huge benefit to economic growth from public investments in rail and renewable energy as central pillars of the government's spending review, in truth it is not enough to propel the economy forward. To generate the kind of income that will pay for the next 30 years of an ageing society, plans to link Manchester and Liverpool by a marginally faster and more reliable train, though good in itself, is not the answer. The Treasury knows it is just an upgrade to existing services and will deliver only incremental returns. To turbocharge growth, the chancellor wants private money to take the lead, partnering government to share the burden of building bridges and tunnels and spurring investments in whizzy new ventures. And as a start, the Treasury wants the shackles taken off the bankers so they can become more inventive in the way they make money, taking risks that were previously frowned upon, if not banned, and rewarding themselves accordingly. It is 18 years since Northern Rock's high-risk mortgage lending began to unravel and 17 years since Lehman Brothers went bust. Long enough, it seems, for memories to fade, and with them concerns about the damaging consequences of light-touch regulation. That said, it's easy to see why the temptation to let the banks loose is back on the agenda. UK banks are among the most profitable in Europe and London plays host to the largest number of foreign banks. The UK's unicorn businesses – those privately held startup companies worth more than £1bn – rank in number behind only the US, India and China. Some startups are considered to be at the forefront of the financial technology boom, including Revolut and Monzo. What could be better for Britain than to leverage a fintech industry that already has a worldwide reputation? Revolut has championed handling funds invested in cryptocurrencies, and for this service, and its banking and wealth management, it has emerged as the most successful European fintech of the past decade. It was valued at $45bn last year. And there is no stopping the chief executive, co-founder and 25% owner, Nikolay Storonsky. He plans to expand into mortgages and consumer lending to challenge the major lenders, as well as growing in the US. Monzo is the digital bank best known for its coral pink debit cards. After 10 years, the company announced its first profit last year, of £15.4m, after more than doubling revenues to almost £900m. Reeves also wants pension funds to take more risks, which is a boon for an asset management industry that has fallen out of favour with the public in recent years due to its high charges and failure to deliver returns that better passive investments. Last week, the House of Lords financial services regulation committee gave Labour's mission a boost. It attacked the main City watchdogs – the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority – for having 'a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion'. In a report that the Treasury will have privately welcomed, the committee said the regulators were partly to blame for holding back economic growth. If the FCA and PRA, which have already pledged to reduce the paperwork and oversight of the City, become more trusting of its ability to manage risk, there is likely to be a sugar rush of activity, much as there was during the noughties. Labour has helped get the ball rolling by lifting the bankers' bonus cap, to allow publicly listed banks to join the bonanza of rewards enjoyed by executives in Revolut and Monzo. Monzo may have made only £15.4m profit but this modest sum was not to be re-invested. It was enough to warrant big payouts, including a £12m bag of cash and shares that Reuters said most likely went to the chief executive, TS Anil. Underscoring how light-touch regulation is matched by executive pay bonanzas, a report last month by the jobs website eFinancialCareers found that bonuses in the UK's investment banks had risen by 26% year on year, beating their equivalents in Asia, Europe and the US. The average bonus payout for a City executive was about £110,000. And the trickle-down effect works in finance. At junior levels, bonuses increased by as much as 133%, the survey found. Labour's backbench MPs know how this play ends. After all the partying and profit-making, there will be a severe hangover. And when that happens, the taxpayer is asked to save the day. Somehow, the profits of the financial sector belong to the bosses and the losses belong to the people.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
More migrants arrive in UK after blundering Labour minister claimed majority on small boats were women and children - but now says he was only talking about ONE vessel
More people have been spotted arriving in the UK via small boats after making the dangerous crossing of the English Channel from France after a Labour Minister had to issue a clarification after claiming the majority of migrants are women and children. Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, made the claim during Thursday's Question Time programme before hastily 'clarifying' he was referring to one specific boat after the figure was widely debunked online. The row came as Reform's Zia Yusuf, who revealed an inner chaos to the party when he abruptly quit as chairman last week before returning two days later in a new role, also made false claims when he said 'more than 90 percent' are men. Mr Jones provoked fury when he said that 'the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women'. Following cries of disbelief from members of the public, Mr Yusuf - who prevoiously said getting Reform elected was 'not a good use of my time' - interjected to say that 'more than 90 per cent of them are adult men', which is also incorrect. Home Office figures show 73 percent percent of small boat arrivals in 2024 - or 26,999 out of all 36,816 arrivals - were adult males. On Friday, another 919 people arrived in 14 small boats after making the dangerous crossing from France. That takes the 2025 total to 16,183 - 42 per cent up on the same date last year, and 79 per cent up on 2023. The figure makes yesterday's arrivals the second highest number so far this year. On Saturday more refugees and migrants arrived in Dover after being picked up in the Channel by a Border Force vessel. One man was seen being helped into a wheelchair after the toll of the crossing in the world's busiest shipping lane. On Question Time on Thursday following Mr Yusuf's intervention, host Fiona Bruce turned to Mr Jones and asked: 'You're saying that's not true?' He replied: 'I'm saying it's not true. I'm saying this is controversial for a reason and you're told you're not supposed to challenge the audience on Question Time, but I'm going to. 'When there are babies and children put into that position by human trafficking gangs, who are coming across the Channel with skin burns from the oil from those boats mixing with the salt sea water, I would ask any of you to look at those babies and children and say 'go back'. Mr Yusuf hit back: 'In my previous answer, I made the case that this Government prioritises foreign citizens over citizens of the United Kingdom. After that testimony, I can rest my case. 'The vast, vast majority of people making the journey from France by small boat are fighting age, military age, males, not women and children. 'We're talking about asylum hotels, and Rachel Reeves saying we're going to shut down asylum hotels. 'I spent many weeks in the constituency of Runcorn and Helsby. Runcorn is a very deprived area. And do you know the issue that exercised people so much? The reason is primarily because of HMOs – houses of multiple occupancies. 'In an unholy alliance of Serco and Yvette Cooper, illegal migrants are being deposited into communities and there's no say for the local people.' Taking to X (formerly Twitter) this evening, Mr Jones clarified his position but maintained the percentage of migrants that are adult males is 'not north of 90 percent'. He wrote: 'Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men - but not 'north of 90 percent' as Reform claimed. 'On @bbcquestiontime I shared a story from my visit to the Border Security Command about a dinghy that arrived mostly carrying women, children and babies who had suffered horrific burns. 'I'm happy to clarify this given how this is now being misrepresented. 'Labour committed new funding this week to secure our borders while Reform have voted against giving our police the powers needed to smash the gangs fuelling this vile trade.' At her spending review on Wednesday, Rachel Reeves pledged that migrants would be moved out of hotel accommodation by the time of the next general election, due in 2029. Ms Reeves also promised £1 billion of savings by speeding up the asylum system, along with £280 million investment in future years for the new Border Security Command. Latest figures show £3.1 billion was spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels in 2023-24, out of a total asylum support bill of £4.7 billion. More than 30,000 asylum seekers are housed in about 200 hotels across Britain, many of whom arrived illegally in dinghies, and ministers are looking at moving them into derelict tower blocks and student digs. But despite Ms Reeves' pledge to end the use of hotels, the Tories pointed out that the small print of her Spending Review documents revealed that £2.5 billion will still be spent each year on asylum support by the end of the decade. It comes as dramatic pictures emerged of French police using tear gas and pepper spray to disperse hundreds of migrants trying to board boats headed for Britain. Some officers were seen entering the water and dragging them back to shore. A major point of contention between Britain and France has been the French authorities' refusal to turn back migrants who are already in the water. Despite officers' efforts, a significant number of migrants were able to successfully cross this morning - with pictures showing them at Dover. A record five months of the year has brought the provisional arrivals today so far to 14,812 arrivals. This has also surpassed the highest total recorded for the first six months of the year, which was previously 13,489 on June 30 last year. In 2024, the number of arrivals did not reach more than 14,000 until July 9 (14,058). The Government has vowed to crack down on people-smuggling and Channel crossings since coming to power in July last year. This includes funding elite officers to increase patrols along the northern French coastline and launching a specialist intelligence unit in Dunkirk to track down people smugglers. It has also established a Border Security Command to lead strategy and its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through Parliament, seeks to introduce new criminal offences and hand counter terror-style powers to law enforcement agencies to target smuggling gangs. However, critics have repeatedly warned the 'smash the gangs' strategy will not work unless there is a deterrent strong enough to prevent migrants from wanting to make the crossing in the first place. Yesterday, a spokesman for the PM repeatedly refused to engaged with questions about whether Mr Jones was right. 'The Government is absolutely focused on tackling these vile smuggling gangs… ' they said. Asked again about Home Office figures suggesting he is wrong, the spokesman said: 'The focus of the government is tackling these vile gangs that deal in misery.' Pressed if the PM had confidence in Mr Jones, the spokesman said: 'Yes.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Darren Jones is completely out of touch with reality. 'Since 2018, 73 percent of small boat arrivals have been single adult men. Yet Labour MPs like Jones still push the fairytale that these boats are full of women and babies. It's a dangerous distortion of the truth. 'No wonder this is shaping up to be the worst year on record for small boat crossings. If this is what passes for reality inside the Labour Government, Britain is in serious trouble.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security. 'The people-smuggling gangs do not care if the vulnerable people they exploit live or die as long as they pay, and we will stop at nothing to dismantle their business models and bring them to justice. 'That is why this Government has put together a serious plan to take down these networks at every stage, and why we are investing up to an additional £280 million per year by 2028-29 in the Border Security Command. 'Through international intelligence-sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs whilst strengthening the security of our borders.'
