Games Monitor

Skip to main content.

LOCOG's Food Vision 'completely out of touch'

| | | |

Local food suppliers and health and animal welfare campaigners have criticised LOCOG’s recently issued Food Vision. LOCOG claims it will 'showcase the best of British food in 2012'. However, Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA disagree. Rowen West-Henzell, Compassion in World Farming’s Head of Food Business said: "The resulting food vision is conspicuous - not for being visionary, but for being completely out of touch with the growing food culture in Britain and what, as a nation, we might wish to eat at our Games." The British Heart Foundation complain that about 3 million of the 14 million meals will be served by McDonalds. Ruairi O'Connor, head of policy at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Health does not seem to be high on the agenda."

CIWF and the RSPCA are unhappy that LOCOG has adopted Red Tractor as its baseline welfare standard. CIWF declares this standard allows 'pigs and chickens to be farmed intensively in some of the worst farming conditions in Britain.' The RSPCA says it is ‘disappointed that the commitment to higher animal welfare standards is not extended to other species such as chicken and pork.

CIWF goes on to criticise the nutritional value of the meat. 'For athletes concerned about their diet, intensively reared, fast-growing chicken actually contains more fat than protein. Research has shown that breast meat from slower growing breeds, such as those used in Freedom Foods farms, have more protein than fast-growing breeds and half the amount of fat making higher welfare a healthier option.'

River cottage chef and campaigner Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall said: "It is totally inconsistent and I think inconceivable that we will be watching sports people at their peak of fitness, yet being served chicken by the Olympic Games catering service that not only has an arguably lower nutritional value, but has been produced in a system that causes lameness in over a quarter of the birds."

The British Heart Foundation also expresses concern about the nutritional value and quality of the food to be provided. Ruairi O’Connor said "The focus on fast food, where the primary products are high in fat, sugar and salt, means we question whether the health legacy which has been promised will be fulfilled."

Another group to express astonishment is the New Spitalfields Market, the largest fresh produce wholesale centre in the UK, which is not even mentioned in the Food Vision despite the fact that is the quite literally on the other side of the road from the Olympic Park. The Olympic authorities have repeatedly claimed they are determined to involve local people and businesses.

Spitalfields' business development manager Tim Williams said: "Despite our many attempts to connect with the relevant authorities, they have completely ignored the existence of the largest wholesale market in the UK, which is sited half a mile from the main Olympic Park, Olympic Village and press and broadcast centres." Jim Heppel, chief executive of the Spitalfields Market Tenants Association, said the market could deliver fresh fruit and vegetables directly to the Olympic Park using "sustainable, ecologically friendly vehicles" which would reduce the enviromental impact and security risks.

A McDonald’s spokeswoman put things in perspective. "We pay money to have the exclusive worldwide rights on branded food provision at the Olympics. Without commercial sponsors like McDonald's, the Games simply couldn't happen."

That’s Olympics' sustainability for you.


2012's meaningless food vision

A close look at LOCOG's 'Food Vision' shows it to be the usual pile of meaningless and carefully hedged assurances.

"We will secure the best revenue by ensuring that the catering offer provides choice and diversity while being great value for money, accessible and affordable to all. Naturally this means we must balance the sustainable commitments outlined in this food vision with the need to guarantee that the catering offer remains good value for money, accessible and affordable for all our customer groups."

So 'sustainable commitments' are not actually commitments at all, because 'naturally' they need to be 'balanced' with other considerations, like making the food cheap enough, or available at all.

What about this for a 100% guaranteed commitment :

"Across the Games a minimum of X%* RSPCA Freedom Food Certified chicken will be available."

(* Percentage to be agreed, once menus have been submitted and agreed
with contractors)

This Food Vision has also given a new lease of life to the most ludicrous London 2012 claim yet - that it aims to be "the most sustainable games in history". I would love to know by what ingenious definition of sustainable this could be remotely possible. As philosopher Luc Ferry has said "I know that this term is obligatory, but I find it also absurd, or rather so vague that it says nothing.", but this is taking saying sustainable nothingness to a whole new level.
If by sustainable they mean low consumption of resources, carbon footprint etc then surely the previous London games in 1948 was the real thing - no construction, no extravagant Olympic Village, 750,000 visitors hardly any of whom would have flown, no millions of watts of power transmitting the events to billions of TVs, no fleet of 4000 BMWs. And they brought their own sandwiches, though without Red Tractor labels.