Doubtless you will recall that Nanny got her knickers into a right old twist approximately 10 days ago, as the Sudan Scandal broke wind.
Indeed Nanny got herself into such a flap, that she managed to panic the media and the British people into believing that we were all going to die from cancer; as a result of eating food products that contained Sudan I chili powder.
Hundreds of different brands were removed from supermarket shelves, as one of the largest product recalls in British history got under way; in other words there was blind panic.
Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I took Nanny's hysterical claims with a proverbial pinch of "chili".
We have lived through egg scares, salt scares, fat scares and countless other hysterical food scares; I doubted that one more "suspect" food would change the overall threat matrix.
It seems that I was right.
Nanny's chums in the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health have recently issued a press release, I reproduce it in full below, the upshot of which is that the Sudan scare is bollocks and a total over reaction; if you take into account the other "threats" to our health.
I wonder if Nanny and the media will apologise for trying the scare the "**it" out of us?
Will they f**k!
Any guesses as to which food will next be subject to an hysterical outburst from Nanny?
Text of Press Release
Sudan1 - An Unnecessary Scare
It is not surprising that people are inclined to panic if they cannot get a clear picture of the risks they are being exposed to, particularly where food additives are concerned, says the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health.
Head of Policy Alastair McCapra commented "The public might find it helpful if the Food Standards Agency gave a clearer scientific account of what is happening. The science behind food-related risk is often complex and indeterminate. But people will have to learn to get to grips with that. What we want to know is "If I eat 1 gramme of Sudan 1 food dye every week for the rest of my life, how are my chances of developing cancer affected?"
"There is little point in trying to communicate risk to the public in general terms by talking about 'high' or 'low' risk. If people are advised that Sudan 1 may cause cancer they need to know what this means. How much Sudan 1 is as dangerous as one cigarette, for example? Personally I'd like to know whether it is riskier for me to eat food containing traces of Sudan 1 every day or to ride a bicycle through central London every day."
"The Food Standards Agency has acted consistently and transparently in the public interest since it first became aware of the risk from Sudan 1 back in 2003 and began to organise product withdrawals. However it is not helping itself now by sending out mixed messages. To the public it says 'the risk is likely to be very small', while its guidance to local authorities is that they should ensure that affected products are removed from sale 'as a matter of urgency."
"We are in an impossible situation at the moment where we expect national agencies to protect us from many vanishingly small risks. If these agencies do not act decisively they will be accused of complacency. If they do act decisively, as the Food Standards Agency has done, they risk causing panic. If they wish to continue commanding public confidence, they must talk about science and risk in a more sophisticated way."
'Ultimately there are plenty of things in your food you should be more worried about than Sudan 1 - particularly salt, fat and sugar. If people are concerned about their food and about their health, eating more fruit and vegetables and less processed food is a good thing to do, regardless of whether it contains Sudan 1 or not.'