We Can Talk About The Weather

In Britain we don’t so much have a climate as lots of weather. It is often said that we sometimes experience four seasons in one day and the fact that we get so much weather is the principle reason that we talk about it so often; there is always something to talk about. Last Friday the media went into overdrive as forecasters began warning of a weather system developing in the Atlantic that they predicted would bring hurricane force winds of up to 90 mph and as much as twelve inches of rain. Nowhere over the weekend could you avoid news of the impending storm and inevitably comparisons were drawn with The Great Storm of 1987.

The forecast for last Monday - not particularly dramatic looking.

Yes, The Great Storm of 1987 was on everyone’s lips over the weekend and Michael Fish, the BBC meteorologist whose fame was assured the moment he referred to the potential of a storm in his forecast in October ‘87, was wheeled out on television to recount his version of events. “Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way; well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't, but having said that, actually, the weather will become very windy, but most of the strong winds, incidentally, will be down over Spain and across into France.” That was what he said back in 1987 and although he did warn that it would be “very windy” in the South of England, no one really expected what followed. In typically British fashion, Mr Fish is most remembered (and endearingly so) for something he got wrong.

Since most other people have been at it, this is what I recall from 1987. On the evening of 15^th October 1987, a Thursday, I had been to the theatre in London. On the way home, as I stood waiting for a train at Stratford, I was struck by how preternaturally  calm it was. Not a breath of air to be felt; it seemed positively muggy. I went home, went to bed and the next thing I knew my alarm clock radio was going off at 6.30 the next morning. The radio was tuned to Radio 4 and the newsreader was recounting how the BBC had the emergency generator going and they were using storm lanterns in the studio. What, I wondered, was going on? I went downstairs to find that my parents (this was a couple of years before I got married) had been up most of the night, having been awoken by the howling gale that I had managed to sleep through. Outside it did seem a bit draughty and there was a tree or two that had parted company with the ground. As the radio said there were no overground trains or buses in my area, I set off for work on foot to walk to the nearest tube station. Despite suggestions on the radio that people should stay at home, it didn’t really occur to me not to try to get to work.

1987 - Tree flattens car. Photo: Daily Mirror

2013 - Tree flattens car. 

On the way to the underground station I saw plenty of evidence of the damage the weather had wrought. There was debris all over the place and it was lucky that the storm had hit during the night as some pretty weighty objects had been tossed about like confetti. Had the storm hit during the day there would have been significant casualties; as it was between 16 and 19 deaths have been attributed to the 1987 storm. Having caught a tube at Dagenham East, I was turfed off at Plaistow due to a tree on the line, caught a bus to Stratford and a tube from there to Bank. Arriving at work, I found that about a third of my colleagues had made it in. With no key holders and therefore no access to the safe, we were told by Head Office not to open the doors. Customers phoned to complain that we hadn’t called them with information that we normally provided each day, to which we answered that we didn’t know what the weather was like with them but it had been a bit windy in London and as a result we were a bit short-handed (the point is always more effectively conveyed with a bit of understatement - or is that sarcasm?). Ultimately the Bank of England declared it a non-working day.

I guess that overall I was pretty lucky; my area only got the edge of the storm and damage was relatively light compared with say, Sevenoaks, where six of the trees that give the town its name were blown over. There were ships capsized or driven ashore in the English Channel, caravan sites were flattened and on the Isle of Wight, Shanklin pier was reduced to a pile of wood.

1987 and a cross-channel ferry is run ashore. Photo: Huffington Post

The storm that hit Britain last weekend was not quite as ferocious as that of 1987. The top wind speed in 1987 was 115 mph at Shoreham in Sussex; this time round it was 99 mph at The Needles on the Isle of Wight. There were a number of other key differences this year, however. Firstly, we knew it was coming. In 1987 the storm came as a surprise; this year the forecasters were all over it and the public and industry had time to prepare. My wheelie bins were in the garage on Sunday morning as I had no desire to chase them down the road in a gale. The conservatory roof, however was another matter. It creaks and groans in the wind anyway and I had visions of panels flying off into neighbouring gardens when the storm hit; fortunately it held on.

Since the country was prepared, contingency plans swung were invoked. In 1987 the idea of a Business Recovery Plan was pretty rare. Companies had vague plans for what would happen in an emergency, but they were rarely tested; it really was a case of hoping for the best if bad weather or any other contingency occurred. Even when the IRA were bombing the British mainland there was little in the way of contingency planning. These days the global threat of terrorism and the more mundane weather related problems mean that firms large and small have contingency plans, which are regularly updated and tested. Hence when the threat of last Monday's storm loomed, these plans swung unto operation.

Another major difference between the storm of 1987 and the St Jude's Day storm this year was that a contingency that many companies could bring into play was having their staff work from home. In 1987 working from home was not a viable alternative, indeed it was unheard of; nowadays many firms have staff working from home at all times and their ability to do so enabled a continuity of service impossible twenty six years ago. The advances in technology, along with enabling home working, have seen the proliferation of social media channels like Facebook and Twitter. As ever these went into overdrive as people swapped stories and photographs before, during and after the storm.

The rail network pretty much shut down in the South of England, which initially appeared to be an over-reaction. It actually proved quite wise as most lines were affected by fallen trees or downed power lines; the fact that the shut-down was known in advance significantly reduced the number of passengers stranded at one station, or standing forlornly at another, waiting for a train that would never come.

Sadly, two people died when falling trees ruptured gas pipes, causing an explosion. 

The difference between the way in which were heard about, reacted to and were affected by the storms of 1987 and 2013 is in a way a representation of how Britain has changed in the last twenty six years. 1987 doesn't seem that long ago, yet the changes in that time have been immense. Looking at the BBC website on Tuesday, the startling thing is how relatively limited the coverage of the storm is; the impact on some people has been significant, but compared with 1987, the day after the storm is, for many people, as if it had never happened.

Next on the list of weather topics will doubtless be snow. There is annual criticism of how, compared with say Scandinavia, Britain always grinds to a halt even when there is a mere sprinkling of snow, to which I say that in Norway or Sweden they know when it is coming. In Britain it will be forecast, but not arrive, or despite it not being forecast, we will wake up one morning to find four inches of snow on the driveway.

Oscar Wilde may have said "Conversation about the weather is the last refuge of the unimaginative", but the weather is a topic of conversation that will never go out of fashion; not in Britain at least.

That's So Peter Gabriel!

Some musicians are wont to continuously reinvent themselves; think David Bowie, think Madonna. Others plough the same narrow furrow throughout their careers (yes, Status Quo, I am talking about you). Steering a course somewhere between the two is Peter Gabriel.

In 1975 Gabriel handed in his batwing costume, hung up his Slipperman suit and waved goodbye to prog rock giants Genesis to embark on a solo career. His first album (eponymously titled, as were his subsequent three releases) was an eclectic mix a world away from the material he had written and recorded with Genesis. It spawned a hit single, Solsbury Hill, introducing Gabriel to a new audience. To distinguish his untitled first three albums from one another they are normally referred to as Car, Scratch and Melt; his fourth album, untitled in the UK, was released as Security in the USA.

Then, in 1986, Gabriel surprised his fans with an album that actually had a title; So. It went triple platinum in the UK and reached Number One in the album charts. It generated three Top 20 UK hit singles; Don't Give Up, Big Time and Sledgehammer,  on which Gabriel made his intentions clear; "This is the new stuff, I go dancing in." Now Gabriel has returned to So and his "Back to Front" tour features the album in its entirety, reuniting many of the musicians who played on the album and subsequent tour.  I caught up with the show on Tuesday when Gabriel played the second of two nights at the O2 in London this week. I would have gone on the Monday but tickets were only available for level four, not suitable for anyone with "any issues with vertigo or fear of heights." That would be me then; my abject fear of heights no, more my terror that I might jump or do something silly, decided me on a ticket for level one, albeit further from the stage; quite a bit further from the stage actually, which I will return to later.

The upper tiers at the O2; a very long way up!

As one might expect from Gabriel, the show is an eclectic mix; a three course banquet, each course different from the others. The first section is acoustic with Gabriel playing piano as he launches into Come Talk To Me, accompanied by Tony Levin on bass. Shock The Monkey receives similar acoustic treatment, but as Family Snapshot reaches its conclusion the house lights go down and the band kick in. Of course Gabriel being Gabriel, he includes a hitherto unheard and apparently unnamed and unfinished song in the set; no one minded, even if the applause was more polite than rapturous. Even on this unfamiliar piece, Gabriel’s voice is as rich, as emotional and evocative as ever.

The second course is no less varied, but distinctly heavy in tone; Digging In The Dirt, The Family and the Fishing Net and No Self Control are accompanied by strobing lights and Gabriel's now familiar pylon-searchlight stage props that bow and scrape, menacing the performer. Solsbury Hill is a jaunty interlude to which the band positively skips around stage.

Red Rain

Finally, So; "When we briefly became pop stars," says Gabriel at the outset of the gig. It is as you would expect; the stage glows blood red for Red Rain, the arena bounces and sings along lustily to Sledgehammer, and  Jennie Abrahamson achieves the near impossible by dueting with Gabriel on Don't Give Up such that we don't try to make obvious comparisons with the incomparable Kate Bush. The set concludes with In Your Eyes but not before Gabriel has encouraged the audience to indulge in a departure from the normal concert etiquette that decrees that it is not acceptable to spend more of the show filming the performance on a smartphone than watching the band, and to film This Is The Picture and upload the resulting footage to his website.

It is hardly surprising that Gabriel's decision to play his most commercial album in its entirety has resulted in a highly successful tour, but as The Guardian critic Alexis Petridis pointed out, had he chosen to play his previous solo offering (Peter Gabriel 4), he might have had to content himself with more modest venues than the O2. Unlike the Steve Hackett concert that I saw earlier this year, the audience for Gabriel had a different demographic with fans young and old. While Hackett's audience were disinclined (or incapable) of dancing in the aisles, there were plenty of people on their feet during Sledgehammer and Big Time at the O2.

Playing an arena like the O2 has its drawbacks; while the size of the venue allows the performer to showcase their material to a large audience, it is somewhat soulless, lacking in the intimacy that other more modestly sized venues like The Royal Albert Hall or the Hammersmith Odeon (now known as the Eventim Apollo) have. For that reason, being a football pitch's length from the stage in that vast cavern of a place, I would have to knock one star off what would otherwise have been a five star gig.  For one reason or another stadium gigs often get mixed reviews; outdoor concerts, apart from being at the mercy of the weather, often suffer from indifferent sound quality and where one is seated has an enormous bearing on one's enjoyment of indoor shows.

That said, the O2 is a damn site more successful than anyone can have envisaged when the building first opened. Although the Dome project was conceived by John Major's Conservative government, the original, more modest plans were expanded upon by Labour after their 1997 election success. Mandelson's Folly (sorry, The Millennium Dome) was opened on time, but wildly over-budget. In typical political style the somewhat worthy attractions (translation: boring and of little interest to anyone) failed to spark public enthusiasm and visitor numbers were disappointing (six million compared with the projected twelve million). Ironically, Peter Gabriel's eleventh album, OVO, was the soundtrack to the Millennium Dome Show. The Dome's major problem seemed to be that no-one had a clear concept of what it was supposed to be and what was supposed to be in it.

Worthy, but dull. One of the Dome's original exhibits. Photo: BBC

With the Dome losing money hand over fist and costing £1 million per month to maintain, it was sold to the telecommunications group O2 plc in 2005 and now comprises a cinema, exhibition hall, restaurants and bars as well as the Arena concert venue and the smaller indigO2 live music club. I saw Porcupine Tree play the indigO2 a few years back and can vouch for the venue's more intimate atmosphere.

As much as I enjoyed the "Back To Front” show I would have enjoyed it all the more at say, the Hammersmith Odeon. Had it been there, however I would probably not be in a position to write this; I probably wouldn't have been able to get a ticket. Sometimes monstrous venues have their advantages after all.

Here We Go, Here We Go...Again!

So, England laid the ghost of 1973 to rest with a 2-0 World Cup Qualifier win over Poland on Tuesday night. This time, unlike forty years ago, there was no Jan Tomaszewski singlehandedly denying England; goals from Rooney and Gerrard secured England's place in Brazil in 2014.

I remember the game back in '73 well; who among us of a certain age doesn't? Poland came to Wembley needing just the one point to qualify, which they duly earned. England finished second in the group and that year there was no second chance, no play-offs to fall back on. What I had forgotten, until I looked it up in Wikipedia, was that the qualifying group consisted of England, Poland and Wales...and that was it. Imagine, England had to play just four games to try and qualify, not the ten needed now; just four games and after a 2-0 defeat in Poland, the writing was on the wall. Mind you, Wales managed to beat Poland for their only three points in the group; had Poland won in Cardiff, the match at Wembley in October 1973 would have been a dead rubber anyway.

Jan Tomaszewski denies England at Wembley in 1973. Photo: theguardian.com 

In 1974 in Germany there were sixteen finalists; that number has now doubled and while there will be the inevitable minnows, the also rans, there are sufficient good sides to supplement those we can honestly call great sides, meaning that progress will be difficult. It is moot as to whether the increased number of teams in the finals improves or devalues the competition. On the one hand it does mean that some of the heavy weight nations don't eliminate each other in qualifying, but it also means that some teams can only really be there for the ride, for the opportunity to swap shirts with the Messis and Ronaldos of this world. That said, the last World Cup in South Africa saw France and Italy finish bottom of their respective groups, so perhaps there is something to be said for the competitiveness of having thirty two teams after all.

No piece about England the World Cup is complete without the obligatory picture of Bobby Moore and the Jules Rimet Trophy. Photo: Daily Mail

Roy Hodgson now joins the small group of England managers who have had the chance to lead their country into the World Cup Finals, but what of his chances of success? Let's be honest, they are slim; after all, if France and Italy failed to make the last sixteen in 2010, there is no guarantee that England will escape their group, although this largely depends on who they have to play. We won't know who England's opponents will be until 6th December, but we do know that they will be seeded in the second pot and so will have to face one of the top sides, like Brazil or Germany. Regardless of the draw, the press will immediately forecast that England will progress to the next round, possibly conceding that they may have to be content with second place in the group if we do draw Brazil, or Germany...or Argentina, or Spain.

Every four years it is the same (well every two years actually as they are exactly the same at the Euros); the press build up England's chances only to knock them down again after the inevitable elimination, usually on penalties after one hundred and twenty minutes have elapsed in which England haven't mustered a shot on target.

Assuming that England qualify from their group there will come a day, in the last sixteen or maybe even the last eight, when Gary Lineker or Adrian Chiles will lead their team of TV pundits in a jingoistic exposition of how and why England must reach the next round. Come the game and those of you who like to add a little fun to the torture of watching England play in major tournaments might like to play Commentator Bingo by seeing who can spot the most hackneyed phrases and tired clichés first. "England expects" is a good one (often uttered as soon as the first whistle is blown) as are any references to the coincidence that England are wearing red, as they did in the 1966 final, which must be a good omen. If England play USA reference will be made to the 1950 finals when the Americans pulled off an almighty shock by winning 1-0 in Belo Horizonte. If England play Germany then it won't be long before penalties are mentioned; if Chris Waddle or Gareth Southgate are in the commentary box then they will be expected to trot out the story of their missed spot kicks in 1990 and 1994; meanwhile every second remark will be a reference to the 1966 final. The fact that no European country has won a World Cup in South America is another fact that will be repeated frequently as though no one at home was aware of it. Two hours later Lineker or Chiles will sit po-faced while the panel dissect England's shortcomings.

Oh, the ignomy! Gaetjens scored for USA in their 1-0 win in the 1950 World Cup. Photo: The Daisy Cutter.

Am I being too harsh? Possibly, but the reality is that no matter how well England play they will not win the World Cup next year, there are too many other good teams there for that to happen. Brazil, Argentina, Germany and Spain for starters, with countries like Netherlands and Belgium having at least as good, if not a better chance of success than England. The Netherlands have a history of imploding at major championships though, but they did manage to get their act together and reach the final last time out and what a bust that was! Fourteen yellow cards (although how Nigel De Jong didn't see red I don't know) in a bad tempered game settled in Spain's favour (to the delight of most neutrals)by an Iniesta goal in extra-time. The 2010 final was another in a long line of dull, bad tempered or just plain nasty finals that seem to continually surprise the commentators, who naively expect the final to be fiesta of free-flowing football, peppered with a host of spectacular goals. The last final like that was probably 1958 when Brazil beat Sweden 5-2.

Belgium are being touted as having a good side, and certainly they have some outstanding individual talent in the likes of Mignolet, Vertonghe, Vermaelen, Hazard, Fellaini, Lukaku, Mirallis and Benteke. I would expect them to reach the quarter-finals, maybe even the semis, but if I had to put money on it I would predict a Brazil-Germany final, with the hosts coming out on top.

You may think that I am being unnecessarily pessimistic; you may think that I am denigrating the England team: I'm not, I am just being realistic. Roy Hodgson has made the best of the assets he has; he has England playing as well as we might expect. With Sturridge and Welbeck taking some of the weight off Rooney's shoulders in the goalscoring department, with Leighton Baines finally emerging from Ashley Cole's shadow as a classy full-back, with the ever dependable Steven Gerrard (for whom this World Cup must be the last hurrah), and with the emergence of Andreas Townsend, Hodgson must believe that he has a squad that will fulfil its potential. How far that potential will take them remains to be seen.

Gratuitous picture of attractive Brazilian football fan; they all look like this apparently.

 Hodgson has achieved the first goal and qualified for the finals, now comes his toughest test, managing our expectations and dealing with the media who will inevitably swing into action by making outrageous predictions that come next July Steven Gerrard will be holding the FIFA World Cup aloft. When this doesn't materialise the graphics departments of the tabloids will be Photoshopping poor old Roy's head onto a root vegetable.

Graham Taylor suffered particularly at the hands of the tabloid press following England's failure to qualify for the 1994 World Cup Finals.

It is odd that the normal English mindset, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst", goes completely out of the window at World Cup Finals when we tend to prepare for the best possible outcome and fall into despair and recriminations when this doesn't happen. The last time England even had a sniff of World Cup glory was in 1990 in Italy, losing almost inevitably to Germany on penalties. If the 2014 World Cup were in Europe I think that Roy Hodgson's side would have an even chance of emulating Bobby Robson's 1990 team; it will be harder in Brazil and I don't expect England to progress beyond the quarter-finals. Just this once though, if we do have to go out of the competition at that stage it would be nice to do so playing attractive, attacking football and be able to say that on the day we just lost to the better team.

Paddling Down The Thames

Being an island, Britain has always had a particular affinity with the sea, with sailing, with boats. Even those of us with no nautical or naval tradition cannot help but find it fascinating and enjoyable to go on boat trips, by which I count anything from a full-blown luxury cruise to a trip on the Woolwich ferry.

Equally fascinating is the opportunity to see familiar places and recognisable landmarks from a different perspective, which Val and I did on Monday last when we sailed on the PS Waverley from Tower Pier down the Thames, across the Estuary to Whitstable via Southend-on-Sea and back again. The Waverley is the last seagoing passenger carrying paddle steamer in the world. Built in 1947, the ship offers excursions around Scotland, the Bristol Channel, the South Coast and the Thames. A trip on the Waverley has been on my “to-do” list for a number of years, but for one reason or another it hadn’t happened before.

It was a long, but charming and absorbing day out. Monday dawned with mist hanging over the Thames as we joined the ship at Tower Pier. Commuters flocked across London Bridge; probably many of them didn’t even notice the paddle steamer moored on the river’s north side. Commuters on Tower Bridge did notice however as the bridge had to be opened to allow Waverley to sail through.

Tower Bridge opens as Waverley departs the upper Pool of London.

 Compared with travelling alongside the Thames, it is only when one sails along it that one really notices how much it meanders. Canary Wharf, still shrouded in mist, appeared on the port bow, receded into the distance and then popped up again as Waverley rounded the Isle of Dogs. We passed Greenwich, the maritime museum, the observatory and the Cutty Sark. Urban developments at Thamesmead and Erith and the now disused Royal Arsenal at Woolwich all hove into view. We passed the Thames Barrier, operational since 1982 and the world’s second largest moveable flood barrier, something that London takes for granted by and large but which is actually used more frequently than most of us would imagine, nineteen times in 2003 and eleven in 2007, for instance.

Mist still clings to the towers at Canary Wharf.

One of the pontoons of the Thames Barrier.

Passing down towards the Dartford crossing and an opportunity to take a look at the engine room. In the buttoned up, health and safety conscious, risk averse world we live in today, it was quite a shock to see the piston rods and other machinery exposed and to be able to approach within a few feet of it all. It was quite refreshing to go on a trip where, although safety was obviously paramount, the passengers were treated as adults who had a modicum of common sense; it made for a very relaxed atmosphere aboard ship.

Close up with the engine aboard PS Waverley

We passed the Dartford crossing, under the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, which I have driven over frequently, but never previously had the opportunity to sail under, the traffic droning over our heads. Sailing towards it was not unlike approaching The 25th of April Bridge on the river Tagus as one approaches Lisbon. Past Dartford and the landscape on the northern side of the river remains industrial. Proctor & Gamble’s plant at West Thurrock, Tilbury Docks, the new (and as yet not open) deep water container facility at Shell Haven, the grandly named but rather unimpressive London Cruise terminal, Canvey Island and then Southend-on-Sea and the world’s longest pleasure pier. In days of yore, steamers plied a regular trade from Southend to Margate, to Lowestoft and beyond. I appreciate that it would likely not be profitable, but I would love it if a scheduled service to places like those were still available from Sarfend.

The QE2 Bridge at Dartford

A large crowd gathered as Waverley docked at Southend.

At two o’clock we docked at Whitstable, a place that Val and I know well. Having only an hour ashore limited what we were able to do, however. Given that it was a short break before Waverley sailed again a meal at The Crab & Winkle, a fabulous fish restaurant in the harbour, was unfortunately out of the question, as was a walk to Tankerton, which we do regularly, so it was a quick stroll down the high street and a plate of delicious fish and chips before returning to the ship.

At Whitstable.

The return trip was as fascinating as the outbound journey had been. At Southend we were greeted by the sight of a seal gambolling about in the water under the end of the pier; I can only assume that it was lost! As we sailed west, the sun set before us so that we passed under the QE2 bridge in twilight, and reached the O2 at North Greenwich after sunset. From the Royal Observatory, a green laser fires into infinity, marking the meridian. The towers of Canary Wharf loom into view, illuminated like a Christmas tree, then recede as Waverley passes round the Isle of Dogs, before appearing again. Then through Tower Bridge, lit up with blue and white lights; watching the bridge open it struck me how quickly it is able to do so, and then, eleven hours after we had departed, we were back at Tower Pier.

Canary Wharf by night

All in all, a brilliant day out and one that I recommend wholeheartedly, although I have to say that had the weather been inclement, it would have been pretty miserable as the amount of covered accommodation on board is insufficient to cater for all the ship’s passengers, but on a fine day like Monday, it was terrific. This was not an excursion that drew many young people (i.e. the under fifties!); it is perhaps the sort of thing that by and large attracts those of a certain age, one of whom bore an uncanny resemblance to Denis Healey. It was only when he opened his mouth to speak to his travelling companion that I was certain that it was not in fact the former Chancellor of The Exchequer.

The Waverley is cared for by a team of professionals and volunteers; it may be a commercial venture, but the people who keep the ship afloat, and others like it, are doing it as much to keep a part of Britain’s heritage alive as to make a profit. In the same way teams of volunteers run steam railways and the like and these people deserve praise and admiration for their efforts.  In the days when cruise ships have become so huge, like floating cities and when air travel is quick and cheap, it is still wonderful to take a leisurely river cruise like this one, to enjoy the passing scenery and the actual ship itself, a memory of a bygone age.

Interesting links:

http://www.waverleyexcursions.co.uk/welcome-aboard/

http://www.paddlesteamers.org.uk/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley

Waste Not, Want Not

Every year 15 million tonnes of food is thrown away in the UK; about half of which is domestic food disposed of for one reason or another. Of this over a quarter is fruit or vegetables, ten percent dairy and twelve percent ready meals. In the US, 40% of all food is thrown out because it has passed its due date.[1]

Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Photo: freshproduce.org.uk

  

Why is so much food wasted? Why is so much food thrown away uneaten, or even unopened? There are a whole variety of reasons and there is no single solution, but one reason may be our confusion over the variety of dates on packaging; Best before, Use by, Display until and Sell by.

Use by dates are normally only on foods that will deteriorate quickly; fresh items like prepared salads, fish and meat, that is to say foods that may be harmful if eaten after the specified date, whereas Best before dates denote that after that date the quality of the food may be impaired although it will still normally be safe to eat. This may apply to tinned foods in particular. Display until and Sell by dates are instructions for retailers rather than indicators to buyers. We have developed such a paranoia about food labelling that as soon as any of these dates have been passed we may feel it best to err on the side of caution and throw the food out rather than take a chance, but food labelling cannot be an exact science; food doesn’t go off immediately the use by date is passed. A piece of meat is not like a library book; it doesn’t expire exactly when the date on the packet says it will; there is no internal clock in  a chop that says that at 11.59 on Thursday the meat is safe to eat but at 00.01 on Friday it is not.

I am not suggesting that use by dates be ignored but just as you wouldn’t eat an obviously rancid piece of meat that had a use by date of tomorrow, why throw out that perfectly edible steak that has a use by date of yesterday? Our old friend common sense has a large part to play in deciding whether or not food is safe to eat.

One of the dilemmas that I have, and I’m sure I am not alone in this, is that I may buy something like some vacuum packed, sliced ham that has a use by date on it, open the pack, use some and place the rest in a Tupperware container in the fridge. When I next go to use it I have no idea what the use by date was, so the thought process may go like this: “Hmm, how long has this been here? No idea, could be a few days, I wonder if it’s OK?” I am certain that in many households this results in perfectly good food being thrown away because of the fear that it is off. I am as guilty as anyone of doing so occasionally, but most times I eat it anyway (unless it is obviously unfit to eat), so far (touch wood) without any dire consequences.

I am old enough to remember the days when food did not come with use by or sell by dates. My parents’ generation used their experience and common sense to decide if food was fit to eat, but then again my parents shopped in a totally different way to how we do today. When I was very young my mother had a fridge with a tiny icebox, large enough to store a packet of frozen peas and little more. We did not have a freezer. By and large my mother would shop almost every day; nowadays most families go to a supermarket once a week and buy in bulk. Now that I am retired I have largely abandoned the weekly shop, except for bulkier items like toilet rolls, kitchen towels, bottled water and the like, and instead buy meat, potatoes, milk and vegetables on a daily basis, or as needed.

The weekly shop is in my view another key reason for food waste. When I shop at my local supermarket I see people with trolleys laden with food enough to feed the five thousand. A lot of this will go into the freezer I suppose, but even then how often do people look in their freezer and realise that those chicken breasts have been there six months? Are they safe to eat, or should we throw them out? Better not take the chance, so out they go.

Supermarkets themselves have to shoulder a significant portion of the blame as well. Buy one, get one free (BOGOF), or half price offers are so enticing that it is easy to buy more food than we really need. I have occasionally bought fruit and been told at the checkout, “Oh, they are on special offer, buy one get one free,” to which I often reply that yes, that may be so but I can only realistically eat the one portion I have picked up before they go off so the other pack, if I bought it, would simply rot and be thrown out. Enticed by the prospect of something for nothing, I have, in the past bought food which I could not eat in time and sadly thrown it away. I am sure I am not alone. Mind you, buying in bulk, or buying larger packs is not necessarily cheaper anyway, as I found buying teabags recently. Per bag, a pack of 80 was more expensive than a pack of 40, so why buy the larger box?

Supermarkets assail shoppers with "cheap" offers, Photo: Daily Telegraph

Then there are packet or portion sizes. We don’t eat vast amounts of bread in our household, and as I have written before, my gluten intolerance means that I do not eat ordinary bread anyway, but the size of loaves of bread and packets of rolls commonly sold in supermarkets means that in the normal course of events much of it would go stale or mouldy unless I freeze at least half of what I buy as soon as I get home. Nonetheless I often find myself having to throw out the last few slices from a loaf.

With the busy lives that so many people lead these days, the temptation to do one vast weekly shop is great. Who, when they have been at work all day, wants to do food shopping on their way home if they don’t have to? But the weekly shop is the greatest cause of food waste in this country in my view, because it encourages overbuying, which leads to food sitting in the fridge unregarded until the use by date has expired. The BOGOF deals, the supersized packets and the fact that supermarket shopping inevitably leads to impulse purchases. Buying things because they look enticing rather than because they are really needed has the effect of shoppers coming home with food that they realistically have little chance of eating before it becomes inedible. This, coupled with the tyranny of the use by date, inevitably leads to food waste, or the consumption of food we don’t really need to eat simply to avoid it being wasted. Perhaps this is a factor in the increase in the number of people who are defined as clinically obese and, because of the nature of the foodstuffs that are being over consumed, the rise in diabetes.

I am lucky in that I have more time to shop these days and so do so more regularly; I am more likely just to buy what I need for the day or the next couple of days. As a result I find that I throw out far less food than I did a year ago, but even for those who by necessity must shop less regularly, a critical examination of what is in your trolley would go a long way to reducing the amount of food we waste every year. After all, does that BOGOF offer save you any money, or benefit you in any way if you just throw the second pack away uneaten?

---

[1] In Boston, Mass., The Daily Table, a hybrid food store and restaurant, will now only sell food that has passed its sell by date. See http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/359261. Also, see the BBC website, “Five expired foods you can still eat” at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-24305902