Yet another load of interfering rubbish from this government:

"Muslim or Christian guest house owners who refuse to accept homosexual couples must impose a "sleeping together ban" on all other guests, the Government says.
As the holiday season gets under way, Meg Munn, a junior minister, has emphasised that it is illegal to allow married couples to share a room at a guest house or hotel while not allowing homosexuals the same right.
If gays are turned away, the only way a Christian or Muslim guest house owner can lawfully stay in business is if he or she offers single bedrooms to all guests - straight or gay." (The Telegraph)

To start with, I don't think that hotels or guest houses are at all right to refuse their services to gay couples. But this is a really stupid idea. To say that you won't let a gay couple share a room is as bad to refuse to let a black couple do the same. It is bigotry. But for the government to say that "either you let gay couples share a room, or no-one" is just absurd.

Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and a leading Church of England liberal, said:

"It is nonsense for the Government to allow any loopholes for religious homophobia... Bigotry is bigotry whether it's dressed up in the language of faith or not."

This is indeed true - bigotry is bigotry, whether or not based on religion. But I think the demand for what amounts to a sex ban is ridiculous, and taking government interfering to yet another level.

Note: I'm not supporting hotels who refuse to rent rooms to gay couples, but I don't think that it is the government's job to force them to do so or go out of business. Society can, and should, do that by avoiding such hotels and guest houses.

Source: The Telegraph

Masterfoods, who recently switched to using animal rennet to make whey for its chocolate, has been forced to rethink it's decision by an adverse reaction from the market. They received 6,000 letters of complaint within a week, and forty MPs signed a petition to "to voice their disquiet". Thus, Masterfoods has changed their decision and had this to say:

"The consumer is our boss and we had lots of feedback from consumers who were unhappy about the change. It became very clear, very quickly that we had made a mistake, for which I am sorry.
There are three million vegetarians in the UK and not only did we disappoint them but we upset a lot of the consumers. We have listened to their views and have decided to reverse our decision."

And that is precisely how the market should and does work. Masterfoods made an unpopular decision, received lots of complaints from consumers, and decided to reverse their decision. Precisely as I said when I blogged about Mars bars becoming non-vegetarian, the market will decide whether Masterfoods have made a good decision or not, and the effect (or potential effect) on their profits will decide their course of action - and in this case, it meant that they had to switch back to the vegetarian-friendly alternative.

A great example of the free market in action.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent

Masterfoods, who make chocolates such as Mars, Snickers, Twix and Maltesers, has from May 1 switched to using animal rennet in the making of their chocolates. Rennet is "a natural complex of enzymes produced in any mammalian stomach to digest the mother's milk" and is used in the production of whey.

Masterfoods said that the change was due to it switching the sourcing of the ingredients they use, and made the "principled decision" to announce the fact:

"Since changing the sourcing of our ingredients we are no longer able to ensure our chocolate will be animal rennet-free. So we made the principled decision to admit it was not guaranteed to be vegetarian. If the customer is an extremely strict vegetarian, then we are sorry the products are no longer suitable."

They do indeed deserve some credit for actually announcing the fact that their chocolate (with a before before date after 1 October) will no longer be suitable for vegetarians. After all, nowhere on its current packaging that I can see does it claim to be suitable for vegetarians.

The Vegetarian Society said that they were "extremely disappointed" at Masterfoods' decision:

"At a time when more and more consumers are concerned about the provenance of their food, Masterfoods' decision to use non-vegetarian whey is a backward step...
Mars products are very popular with young people and many will be shocked to discover that their manufacture now relies on the extraction of rennet from the stomach lining of young calves."

Will they really be "shocked"? No, I very much doubt it. Will it make absolutely any difference to the vast majority of people? Nope. There are three million vegetarians in the UK, so if they take what they consider the "ethical" decision not to eat it and it sufficiently dents Masterfoods' profits, they may well decide to re-source their ingredients again - and from a vegetarian source.

But I doubt that it will that greatly effect their profits. Masterfoods' will have considered the potential impact of switching to a non-vegetarian way of making whey, and obviously considered that the impact would not be large enough to cause them great concern.

It is up to Masterfoods how they make their products. So long as they are not marketing a product as suitable for vegetarians when it is not, I can't see what the problem is. They are a private company who make and sell a product to the public. If they don't buy it, the company has to rethink its strategy or its product. The chocolate may be delicious, but when you choose a philosophy such as vegetarianism it is your own choice. No company or product should have to be vegetarian friendly, and the market will decide whether a company or product that is not can survive.

Just as a final point, I've always found it amusing the smoky bacon crisps are suitable for vegetarians, but cheese and onion crisps aren't...

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times