News archive: December 2006

John Vidal wrote in The Guardian, UK: "Supermarkets fought like rats in a sack for our custom in 2006, but mostly washed their dirty linen in private. No longer. Asda/Wal-Mart has turned on its peers and denounced what it calls "the dirty dozen" - Tesco, Sainsbury, Morrisons, Somerfield, Iceland, Aldi, Lidl, Netto, Budgens, the Co-op, Spar and Kwik Save - for not following its example in refusing to sell eggs sourced from abroad." Editorial comment: We at OrganicFood.co.uk believe this could be the start of an exciting new trend whereby Wal-Mart, like most newly-converted entities, will start to preach green credentials to the market place. Hopefully, this could lead to all UK supermarkets discussing their greenness, raising the standards for all, starting with one of the British public's favourite food causes: eggs. YS

One of London's most fashionable restaurants, used by film stars and members of the Royal family, has become the first in the country to be fined for falsely claiming that meat used in a number of its dishes was organically farmed. Julie's Restaurant and Bar was fined £7,500 after its managing director, Johnny Ekperigin, admitted three offences under the Food Safety Act 1990. The restaurant, in Holland Park, west London, quickly became an institution – initially with the Sloane Ranger and ''Hooray Henry" crowds and latterly with a more bohemian film set – since opening in 1969. It was named after the 1960s interior designer, Julie Hodgess. Prince Charles, nowadays a vigorous champion of organic food, is believed to have been a regular diner when he was a bachelor and Captain Mark Phillips held his stag night at Julie's, which boasts a warren of private dining rooms. With French colonial furniture and sumptuous divans, it is popular for both stag nights and first dates among London's elite and, according to one food critic two years ago, "the whole place reeks of sex". Prince Michael of Kent is said to have taken the one-time Royal Ballet principal dancer Bryony Brind, with whom he developed a close friendship, to their first dinner there. Now, according to the restaurant's website, patrons include Gwyneth Paltrow, Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell. West London magistrates court was told that Julie's claimed three of the dishes on its menu – marinated roast chicken, sausages and spice-crusted rack of lamb – used organic produce. But environmental health officers on a routine visit seized delivery records and discovered that none mentioned that the meat came from organic sources. Environmental health officers from Kensington and Chelsea council estimated that Julie's saved £4,184 by buying chicken that had not been produced organically. Mr Ekperigin, who was also ordered to pay £4,297 costs, was warned that he faced a prison sentence if he was brought before court again on similar charges. But he denied that he had used non-organic meat in an attempt to save money. He told the court: "It was purely a mistake and I had taken my eye off the ball." The Soil Association, one of the approved bodies for certifying organic produce, said it thought the prosecution was the first of its kind. But Steve Belton, its inspectorate director, said he believed that there was "a growing problem" of restaurants taking advantage of the public's interest in organic food and he called on local authorities to carry out more inspections. Fiona Buxton, a Kensington and Chelsea cabinet member for public and environmental health, said: "For many visitors to the restaurant this has led to a betrayal of lifestyle. Consumers buy into the idea of organic food either due to the health implications or in support of good animal husbandry. Julie's Restaurant has cheated them of these values." Article by Nigel Reynolds for The Daily Telegraph, UK, December 19th, 2006

A giant brussel sprout weighing nearly one and a half pounds was discovered by market gardener Carol Farley, of Culm Valley Organics, Uffculme, Devon, growing alongside its normal sized siblings. This supersize veg is 50 times heavier than the average sprout. Mrs Farley, said yesterday: "We've got over an acre of sprout plants growing which is thousands of plants and this one sprout was growing in the middle on a stalk…We use plenty of farmyard manure to fertilise the plants. Maybe that's the secret."

Willy Wonka is the father of nano-food. The great chocolate-factory owner, you'll remember, invented a chewing gum that was a full three-course dinner. 'It will be the end of all kitchens and cooking,' he told the children on his tour - and produced a prototype sample of Wonka's Magic Chewing Gum. One strip of this would deliver tomato soup, roast beef with roast potatoes and blueberry pie and ice cream. In the right order. Violet Beauregarde snatched it, swiftly ate it and, at the pudding stage, turned bright purple and blew up to three times her size. Far-fetched? The processed-food giant Kraft and a group of research laboratories are busy working towards 'programmable food'. One product they are working on is a colourless, tasteless drink that you, the consumer, will design after you've bought it. You'll decide what colour and flavour you'd like the drink to be, and what nutrients it will have in it, once you get home. You'll zap the product with a correctly-tuned microwave transmitter - presumably Kraft will sell you that, too. This will activate nano-capsules - each one about 2,000 times smaller than the width of a hair - containing the necessary chemicals for your choice of drink: green-hued, blackcurrant-flavoured with a touch of caffeine and omega-3 oil, say. They will dissolve while all the other possible ingredients will pass unused through your body, in their nano-capsules. The end of cooking? Probably not. Catch me having friends round for a programmable nanocola? Not more than once. But our reaction to some of the dafter promises of the new science is not really relevant. You may not want it, but the food industry does. Every major food corporation is investing in nano-tech - government in Europe has pumped £1.7 billion in research money into the field over the past eight years. Nano-food and nano-food packaging are on their way because the food industry has spotted the chance for huge profits: by 2010, the business, according to analysts, will be worth $20 billion annually. And there is already a prototype of a Wonka-esque chewing gum that, using nano-capsules, promises the sensation of eating real chocolate. The food industry is hooked on nano-tech's promises, but it is also very nervous. At a conference in Amsterdam to discuss nano-technology, food and health, I found representatives of all the big food corporations, mixing with some bumptious academics, all thrilled with their latest nano-applications, and some less gung-ho bioethicists. The food people included Unilever, Kraft, Cadbury Schweppes, Tate & Lyle and Glaxo-SmithKline: they were very shy and entirely off the record, if they spoke at all. I was having a friendly chat with a research scientist from Numico, the European baby-foods giant (their brands include Milupa and Cow & Gate) until he found out I was a journalist. Then he refused to tell me his name and asked me to erase the word 'Numico' from my notebook. I thought he was going to snatch it away. It's obvious why they were edgy. Consumers are not ready for nano-food. Among some scientists in the field there is a real sense that nano-technology, in food at least, is a revolution that may die in its cradle - rejected by a public that has lost its trust in scientists and its patience with industry's profit-driven fooling with what we eat. At the conference, the media was blamed, of course. The only journalist there, I got some eggs thrown at me. Ignorant, sensationalist journalism was holding back progress, fuelling the public's 'irrational' reaction to novel food processes. But Lynn Frewer, professor of food safety and consumer behaviour at Wageningen University, a leading centre of nano-tech research in the Netherlands, called the scientists to order. It was the public's irrational fears that needed addressing, she said: 'It's human nature. An involuntary risk, however remote, concerns people far more than one over which they have a choice. That's why the public find gene technology more threatening than eating fatty, unhealthy food.' After the debates over GMO (genetically modified organisms) and BSE, she said, public faith is very low, not just in the food industry but also the food regulators. 'The mechanisms to make [them] transparent must be put in place and enshrined - there need to be principles that the public can understand.' Dr David Bennett, a veteran biochemist now working on a European Commission project on the ethics of 'nanobiotechnology', felt the prospect was bleak. He thought public rejection of nanotechnology was 'almost certain'. 'Very little risk assessment has been done on this area, even on some products already entering the market - and it's an open question whether it will be done. To Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, it's a gift.' And, he went on, the lack of proper assessment of nanotechnology scares me shitless'. What's to be afraid of, from a technology that offers so much - healthier food, fewer, better targeted chemicals, less waste, 'smart' (and thus less) packaging, and even the promise of a technological solution to the problem of the one billion people who don't get enough to eat? Amid the papers on issues such as 'application of nano-filtration for demineralisation of twarog acid whey' (which will boost the yield in ice cream and yoghurt production) one much-discussed question in Amsterdam was how government should regulate the arrival of nano in the household. There are no new rules in Europe, and some voices - including the man from Unilever's research labs - dismissed the need for any. Nanotech is natural, he insisted: it uses no new substances, just the same ones smaller. But other scientists in the field disagree. 'Matter has different behaviour at nano-scales,' said Dr Kees Eijkel from the Dutch Twente University. 'That means different risks are associated with it. We don't know what the risks are and the current regulations [on the introduction of new food processes] don't take that into account.' Aluminium, for example, is stable in the 'big world' but an explosive at nano-levels. Some of the carbon nano-structures that are being used in electronics have been shown to be highly toxic if released into the environment. Some metals will kill bacteria at nano-scale - hence the interest in using them in food packaging - but what will happen if they get off the packaging and into us? No one seems to know - and as significant a body as the UK's Royal Society has expressed worries over the lack of research into the health implications of free nano particles being introduced to our environment. The size question is central to these concerns. Nano particles that are under 100 nano-meters wide - less than the size of a virus - have unique abilities. They can cross the body's natural barriers, entering into cells or through the liver into the bloodstream or even through the cell wall surrounding the brain. 'I'd like to drink a glass of water and know that the contents are going into my stomach and not into my lungs,' says Dr Qasim Chaudhry of the British government's Central Science Laboratory. 'We are giving very toxic chemicals the ability to cross cell membranes, to go where they've never gone before. Where will they end up? It has been shown that free nano-particles inhaled can go straight to the brain. There's lots of concerns. We have to ask - do the benefits outweigh the risks?' Asbestos is the analogy everyone comes up with. Sixty years ago, the stable, cheap building material helped war-devastated Europe put up housing quickly, until it was discovered that asbestos micro-fibres, once free, could cause hideous and lethal damage to the lungs. Dr Chaudhry has been leading a team of researchers reporting to the government's Food Standards Agency on nanotechnology and safety. He is worried that the health research is way behind the technology and that a whole range of tests has not been carried out - for instance, on the nano-compounds already being tested for water cleaning in Third World countries. Dr Chaudry's team has told the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that it thought companies and researchers introducing nanoproducts should be obliged to notify the authorities about them. DEFRA agreed and launched the list scheme in September, but decided notification should be voluntary, not mandatory. And you and I cannot see the list - it will, out of respect to commercial interests, be kept secret. This doesn't sound like the sort of openness that will soothe a concerned public, all too wary nowadays of the reassurances of the food industry and science . But the FSA, which is awaiting the results next year of two research projects into nano-tech, food and safety, says it is confident that existing regulations on 'novel' foods, additives and food processes will cover any new products. And, at the moment, it doesn't believe there is any nano-tech in food in Britain - though some scientists think that is wrong. As with GM, we may be overtaken by events in the States, where food regulators have, under the Bush presidency, been steam-rollered by a food industry eager to push in the new technology. So far, however, the list of kitchen nano-products actually on American shelves is unimpressive. The Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington research institute, runs a database of nano-tech products that are commercially available, and the list under Food and Beverage is only 29 products long, compared with 201 under Health and Fitness (I'm excited by the nano-silverised self-cleaning socks). But the list has grown 50 per cent since March, when it was only 19 products long. Most of these products are self-cleaning and anti-bacterial food-packaging items : cutting boards and so on. There's a couple of Samsung nano-silverised refrigerators. There are nutritional supplements, under the well-established American brand Nanoceuticals. There's a Vitamin B12 spray marketed by Nutrition-by-Nanotech. You simply catch a child with an open mouth and spray the stuff straight in: they'll absorb the nano-sized vitamins directly through the mucal cells. 'Tastes like candy... Would you believe it, they are asking for more!' runs the copy line, less than enticingly. Only three items on the Woodrow Wilson list are listed as food. One is 'Nanotea', from a Chinese company, that will increase tenfold the amount of selenium absorbed from green tea (that's a good thing), through capsules engineered to bypass the stomach and dissolve in your lower gut. There's Canola Activa Oil, an Israeli invention: nano-capsule-delivered chemicals in rapeseed cooking oil that will stop cholesterol entering the bloodstream - this is exciting technology, utilising nano's ability to suspend or dissolve any substance you like in water or in oil. And finally there's SlimShake chocolate - a powdered drink that uses nanotechnology to cluster the cocoa cells, and thus cut out the need for sugar. More important, what of the promise that nanotechnology offers hope to the one billion habitually undernourished on the planet? Nothing yet. Dr Donald Bruce, a chemist who heads a group examining technology and ethics for the Church of Scotland, is doubtful. He sat on a committee 10 years ago examining the moral implications of the introduction of GM. 'The public were told that genetic modification was going to feed the world. And so we looked for evidence of any application of that science that had addressed the needs of a poor subsistence farmer. We couldn't find any. The industry went for agronomic benefits, not for people benefits.' With nano-tech, the food industry has once again got it back to front, he feels. ' Such innovation must be consumer-led - the consumer must be able to see what's in it for them.' Violet Beauregarde would certainly agree. Article by Alex Renton for The Guardian, UK

While some experts worry cola isn't the best ingredient in a healthy lifestyle, Canadian federal Health Minister Tony Clement is setting his sights on the cans. A few days after tabling the Canadian government's $300-million plan for managing chemical substances over four years, Clement says soft-drink manufacturers and many other industries will now be forced to prove their products are not putting the health of Canadians at risk. "The obligation is now with the industry to show that the chemicals can be used safely in a given setting, whether it's an industrial setting or a household setting," Clement said in an interview. Bisphenol A is on a list of about 200 chemicals that must be tested in the coming months. The substance is commonly used to coat plastic bottles and cans. Recent peer-reviewed studies have concluded it may also be a hormone disrupter that could cause cancer. "The industry that produces soft-drink cans has to show that that particular chemical, which does have some dangerous qualities to it, does not seep from the can into the liquid that the can is holding," Clement said. Coca-Cola Canada coats cans with the substance to prolong the shelf life of its products, said David Moran, director of public affairs and communications at the soft-drink company. The company has always met safety standards based on the existing scientific evidence, he said. "What we're doing is following generally accepted international practices that have been scientifically provento be safe in other jurisdictions," Moran said. "Having said that, we're a Canadian company operating in Canada and we'll follow whatever the Canadian government comes up with in terms of new regulations." Bisphenol A is normally be identified in products in North America by the triangular symbol for recycling with a "7" in the middle. An industry official insisted there was no reason for alarm, because the current review is designed to make use of new techniques to measure and assess products. "That's the purpose here - to give consumers confidence," said Gabby Nobrega, senior vice-president for Food and Consumer Products of Canada. "You may read one article or you may read one study, but the government process is allowing industry, regulators and everybody to look at the use of substances in the totality of what we know about them, and that's critical," she said. Nobrega noted Bisphenol A is also widely used in a variety of products, including eyeglasses, appliances and automobile parts. Environmental groups suggest this makes it harder to test or find people who have not been exposed to it. "That's one of the problems with environmental contaminants," said Kapil Khatter, a physician who works as a consultant for Environmental Defence, formerly the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund. "We're all getting exposed. So it's very hard to find an effect because there's not enough difference between those who are exposed and those who aren't." Aaron Freeman, the director of policy at Environmental Defence, said soft-drink companies should immediately replace Bisphenol A with alternative products that are already available. If there are any health risks found through testing, he said it could take nearly five years of legally required procedures to remove the products from the shelves. Despite his warnings, Clement said Canada is leading the world by making health issues a priority, thanks to a review of 23,000 chemical substances that began several years ago. "It's a case of us, I believe, putting the proper emphasis on human safety, (and) human health," Clement said. "Certainly, a group that is most at risk if nothing is done would be children, because their immune systems are not as developed as ours are, and there's a longer period of time during which they could be exposed to some of these substances," he said. "So I just think that this is about protecting our kids, it's about dealing with rising incidence of cancer, of other environmental diseases, and so to me, this is revolutionary." Article by Mike de Souza for the Montreal Gazette

Around one in five of domestic animal breeds are at risk of extinction, with a breed lost each month, due to a globalisation of livestock markets that favours high-output breeds over a multiple gene pool that could be vital for future food security, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned today. “Maintaining animal genetic diversity will allow future generations to select stocks or develop new breeds to cope with emerging issues, such as climate change, diseases and changing socio-economic factors,�? the secretary of FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, José Esquinas-Alcázar, said. But of the more than 7,600 breeds in the FAO global database of farm animal genetic resources, 190 have become extinct in the past 15 years and 1,500 more are deemed at risk of extinction according to a draft report, the final version of which is to be presented to an international conference in Switzerland in September that is set to adopt a global action plan to halt the loss. Some 60 breeds of cattle, goats, pigs, horses and poultry have been lost over the last five years, according to the draft presented to over 150 delegates from more than 90 countries meeting at FAO’s Rome headquarters this week. Livestock contributes to the livelihoods of 1 billion people worldwide, and some 70 per cent of the rural poor depend on it as an important part of their livelihoods. Globalization of livestock markets is the biggest single factor affecting its diversity, FAO says. Traditional production systems require multi-purpose animals, which provide a range of goods and services. Modern agriculture has developed specialized breeds, optimizing specific production traits, and just 14 of the more than 30 domesticated mammalian and bird species provide 90 per cent of human food supply from animals. �?Five species – cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens – provide the majority of food production,�? FAO Animal Production Service chief Irene Hoffmann said. “Selection in high-output breeds is focussed on production traits and tends to underrate functional and adaptive traits. This process leads to a narrowing genetic base both within the commercially successful breeds and as other breeds, and indeed species, are discarded in response to market forces.�? But the existing gene pool holds valuable resources for future food security and agricultural development, particularly in harsh environments. The report, the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources, the first-ever global study of the status of animal genetic resources and countries’ capacity to manage them sustainably, is based on data from 169 nations. The final version will be published to mark September’s International Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources in Interlaken, Switzerland.

A poll of 1000 US citizens published on 6 December 2006 reveals that only a quarter realise they are eating genetically modified food and 60% have no idea it's in their diet, New Scientist magazine reports. The news snippet reads: 'Despite having consumed genetically modified food in their cookies and apple pies for the best part of a decade, most Americans still don't know they are routinely eating the stuff.'

Plans to grow genetically modified potatoes in Derbyshire have been abandoned because a farmer fears for his own safety. At the beginning of December the government gave BASF Plant Science permission to grow potatoes in a field near Draycott and in Cambridgeshire. But the Derbyshire farmer has pulled out, as he said he feared protests by environmental campaigners. BASF said it was confident of finding an alternative site. The GM potato crops are to be planted next spring. The trial will last several years. A BASF spokesman said: "BASF is committed to the UK trials of GM potatoes and while it is disappointing that one of the sites is no longer available to take part in this important scientific programme, we are pleased to confirm that we are reviewing a number of suitable locations."

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs. The new UN FAO report 'Livestock's Long Shadow' suggests that livestock production alone accounts for 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of fossil fuels to produce N fertiliser (a fuel-intensive process), energy used in the farming and transport of livestock and meat, and clearing of vegetation for ranching/grazing accounts for 9% of the world's carbon emissions. In addition, ruminant digestion also accounts for a third of methane emissions, a much more powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions from livestock are larger than the global emissions from transport, and the UN predicts that the rising demand for meat will more than double the global impacts of livestock by 2050. A Soil Association spokesman said: "This UN prediction supports the conclusion that we must reduce our meat consumption. However, a total conversion to vegetarianism is unlikely to be the answer. Pastures and mixed farming are very important for wildlife and the maintenance of a large soil bank. Although deforestation for ranching must be stopped, the ploughing up of grassland for arable production would release considerable amounts of soil carbon. A negative impact of arable production (and of white meat, which depends on cereal crops, unlike red meat, which depends on grass) is almost certainly not accounted for in this analysis. The Soil Association is advising less but better quality meat. The expansion of organic production, being free-range, more extensive, and of higher animal welfare, supports this necessary change in modern diets."

Sir David Attenborough has called for a "moral" crusade against wasting energy, drawing parallels with a more conscious approach to food and life. Sir David, 80, the presenter of the Planet Earth television series and one of the UK's most highly esteemed BBC broadcasters, told a Commons committee the wartime slogan "Waste Not, Want Not" should be used to persuade homeowners to switch off electrical appliances instead of leaving them on standby. "I grew up during the war and it was a common view that wasting food was wrong," said Sir David. "It was not that you thought you were going to defeat Hitler by eating a little bit of gristle but that it was actually wrong to waste food. There should be a moral view that wasting energy is wrong," he added. Sir David said he was convinced global warming caused disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. "I have just come back from Australia. People accustomed to living in hot temperatures in the Outback are saying, 'It has never been like this'." He said climate change was a "political hot potato" but he was glad it was being grasped. He refused to be drawn on whether Gordon Brown had gone far enough with his pre-Budget report in tackling climate change. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee is investigating how the public can do more to combat climate change. Sir David Attenborough has called for a "moral" crusade against wasting energy. Sir David, 80, the presenter of the Planet Earth television series, told a Commons committee the wartime slogan "Waste Not, Want Not" should be used to persuade homeowners to switch off electrical appliances instead of leaving them on standby. "I grew up during the war and it was a common view that wasting food was wrong," said Sir David. "It was not that you thought you were going to defeat Hitler by eating a little bit of gristle but that it was actually wrong to waste food. There should be a moral view that wasting energy is wrong," he added. Article by Colin Brown for The Independent

According to the National Farmers' Union, Britain is less self-sufficient in terms of food production than a decade ago. In 1996 farmers and growers accounted for 60% of food supplies - this has dropped to 42% in 2006.

180 schools in diverse communities across England are set to become beacons of good food culture, thanks to £16.9 million Big Lottery funding for a new collaboration of like-minded organisations called the Food for Life Partnership. The positive impacts will go much further, getting schoolchildren and parents across the country cooking, re-skilling dinner ladies, and offering farmers secure markets for local, seasonal and sustainably-produced food. Led by the Soil Association, The Food for Life Partnership consists of the Focus on Food Campaign, Garden Organic and the Health Education Trust, bringing together unique experience of successful practical work in schools, revolutionising school meals and giving children the chance to grow and cook food, and visit organic farms. It helps schools think about their food culture and create school meals which are both tasty, nutritious local and organic. Food for Life is based around the whole school approach - which encourages children, parents, catering staff, governors, headteachers and producers to all fully engage in changes to school food provision. The Food for Life targets are: 1. School lunches should aim to provide food which meets the nutrition standards set by the Caroline Walker Trust and the School Meals Review Panel 2. 75% of all foods consumed should be made from unprocessed ingredients 3. At least 50% by weight of meal ingredients should be sourced from the local region (50 mile radius or the proximity principle applies) 4. At least 30% by weight of the food served should be from certified organic sources 5. Better classroom education on food, cooking, nutrition and health and ensure that all children visit a farm at least once during their time at school Food for Life was set up by the Soil Association, Jeanette Orrey (former catering manager at St Peter's Primary School, Nottingham), Lizzie Vann (who runs Organix, a leading organic children's food company), and Simon Brenman (Organic Networks), a specialist in the organic supply chain. Jeanette Orrey serves as the Soil Association's school meals policy advisor, is a board member on the School Food Trust and has won numerous awards, including the Observer Food Award for 'Person who has done the most for the food and drink industry' in 2003. But prior to this, she was the dinner lady at St. Peter's Primary School in East Bridgford, Nottinghamshire for 14 years. She led a revolution in her school kitchen back in 2000, rebelling against the poor quality of centrally supplied ingredients. She chose to bring catering at her school back in-house, sourcing as much local, organic and fairtrade produce as possible - and all on a very tight budget. Since then, life for Jeanette has sped up and she now travels around the country talking about what has been achieved at St. Peter's and encouraging other schools to implement Food for Life targets. In 2005 the Training Kitchen at Ashlyn's Organic Farm in Essex was opened - there Jeanette offers a two-day practical course on how to transform school dinners using the Food for Life approach aimed at school cooks and catering managers. The courses look at how to cook meals that meet nutritional standards from scratch using local and organic ingredients, menu planning, food purchasing and budget management. Jeanette is also the author of two books, The Dinner Lady and most recently, Second Helpings. For more information, please visit http://www.soilassociation.org/foodforlife

When I say that Acorn House is the most important restaurant to open in London in the past 200 years, there is a danger that you might misunderstand me. You might think I mean “important restaurant�? merely in the way that restaurant critics usually mean it, which is that it represents a small potential change in direction for one wing of the catering business – the way people once talked of such joints as Kensington Place, Gordon Ramsay’s Aubergine, the Eagle, St John and Yo! Sushi. But Acorn House is a different kind of important. Acorn House is life and death important. Because it is London’s first truly environmentally sustainable restaurant. Don’t you dare titter! Don’t you dare yawn and turn the page to see what Robert Crampton has been up to! Don’t you dare curse me for a credulous tree-hugging Cameronian payer of lip service to ideas I do not fully understand! This stuff matters. The Stern Report is true. Everything we are and have ever been is going to disappear unless we do something very serious about global warming very soon. If you really are one of those right-wing nincompoops who think that it’s all a big con by the “eco lobby�? to keep themselves in hemp underpants, and that everything will all turn out fine because everything always does, and in fact there’s a completely independent scientist on the White House payroll who has proved that the world is getting colder and what we need is more carbon dioxide to stop the ice-caps getting too frozen, then, actually, you can turn the page. In fact, why don’t you burn it, too. No, I know, why don’t you roll it up into a taper and use it to set fire to a penguin. The rest of you, who are maybe just beginning to turn off the odd stand-by switch, have stopped revving your engine at the lights to make old ladies cross the road quicker, and no longer leave all the lights on when you go out at night to discourage burglars (because you’ve grasped that burglars are all so wiped out on crack these days that they don’t have the mental quickness to associate the ideas of light and habitation the way they did in the good old days), well, you’re all heroes. But I’ll wager you still go out for dinner occasionally. And there is nothing in the world so wasteful of resources as a restaurant. Apart, possibly, from a war. If we really cared about the future of humanity we would stay home and cook. Or we would go to Acorn House, which is built from organic and recycled materials, composts or recycles 100 per cent of its waste, demands positive animal husbandry, avoids industrial farming, uses green electricity, buys Fairtrade where it can, and pledges never to use airfreight. When transporting within London, Acorn uses bio-diesel, take-away containers are eco-sensitive, and they purify water on site, so there are no road miles and no wasted plastic or glass (I’d rather share my table with a child murderer than a man who drinks Fijian water). And if you do want bottled water, there’s Belu, sourced and bottled in Shropshire, carbon-neutral and non-profit-making, with all proceeds going to fund water projects in drought-afflicted areas (Africa, principally, one assumes, rather than London and the Southeast). I know it might all sound a bit mental and over the top, but it’s not. It’s just sensible. Every restaurant in London could operate like this. And the ones that can’t should close. I understand that you have to take your kids to school in something that, in extremis, would keep them safe from lion attack and nuclear war, but these are just restaurants. We don’t, truthfully, need them at all. And the thing is, Acorn House isn’t a compromise. It is a great little restaurant. (In fact, all other restaurants are a compromise – we tolerate shortening the life of the race in return for a good nosh.) I was sceptical at first. So sceptical that I went down for lunch on the day I had booked supper there with my girlfriend to make sure she wouldn’t be disappointed. It is in King’s Cross, an area that is not only as impoverished by carbon fuel emissions as anywhere in the world (I believe the Euston Road, which begins here, is the most polluted in Britain), but is where all our problems began. For King’s Cross Station, gateway into town for the produce of t