food, glorious food - who is to blame?

Why have we been reduced to talking about food as if it isn't food? It's all "products" and "fatty foods" and "reduced-salt intake" and so on, and it frankly sounds about as appetising as - as -well, as somebody said to me this morning: "these nutritionists talk about food as if it were excrement."

The BBC website (article: "Not that naughty but still nice") makes it all sound even more fun. Get this:

"Taking fat or sugar out of food is not necessarily as straightforward as it sounds.

The product may simply not sit together properly - it is hard for instance to make ice cream bind without sugar, or pastry and chocolate without certain quantities of fat...

Take too much fat out of cheese and it won't do the things that consumers like it to do, such as bubble, melt and go brown.

Worst of all, it may end up not tasting like cheese, and researchers are agreed that if these products are to work, and genuinely reduce the nation's waistlines, they must be virtually indistinguishable from that which they are supposed to emulate."

Got that? The key word is clearly emulate.

Do we understand? It's no longer even real food we're talking about!

But never fear: "One particularly promising avenue is the mushroom."

"Hurrah!" I hear you cry. "I love mushrooms!" But don't get excited. Apparently, "It produces hydrophobins, air cells which protect the fungus from water, but which appear to have the same material properties as oil. And yet they have no calories."

That's all right then! We'll all hold out for that. And while I can only applaud (as a person whose moderate enjoyment of food has often led me into dress sizes I'd prefer not to talk about) the verdict of the food researchers who this morning announced that "individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity" - the rationale being that cheap fatty carbohydrates are cheaper, and that we all (sic) drive cars and no one walks anywhere any more - I do still think there is probably a little that individuals could do. I'm complaining about the way we talk about food, but we could all do with just thinking about it a little.

Now, let Ms Baroque remind you. She ate no fat at all (beyond what is found in a chicken breast) for four months, on medical instructions. This was a Bad Thing, and left her vitamin-deficient as well as run-down.

But anyway, here's what worked. Use the merest drib of olive oil in your pan. Slice, don't chop, the onions (it's just nicer), and cook them in it. When it dries out too much, pour in some white wine. (You know me; I even used rosé sometimes. It was fine.) When you're ready, add your garlic, a bay leaf or two, your meat - chicken breast, white fish, or even - now I'm back on normal food - a pork chop or whatever, and, once it has browned, add more wine. Cook till done.

This method uses about a teaspoon of oil. The key is not then to put lashings of butter on your rice, or eat half a camembert with it. Don't encourage your kids to eat crisps, and look for cakes - such as the Dutch ginger cakes you can get - that are naturally, and meant to be, low in fat.

Also: fat-free or low-fat yogurt; fruit; Marmite without butter on your toast. Frozen yogurts or sorbets instead of cheap ice cream. Baked sweet potatoes, that are actually nicer without butter.

Also: get a range of your food groups in. I love the food groups: cereals and starches, meats & proteins, fruit & vegetables, milk & dairy, and fats, oils and sweets.

Alcohol is not a food group. I have to say, I do wonder if my almost-complete abstention did me some good during those four months. Of course, that was largelydown to never going anywhere. Things are different now...

Anyway, come on, guys! It may have all turned to food science - but it's not rocket science.