Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
What are fresh ingredients?
There is no definition of “fresh ingredients” as stated in a written statement of reasons by the judge. Who then goes on to define fresh ingredients as follows:
“fresh ingredients is something that is not stale, that is before its best before date or end date. Nutritious foods of all types comes in tins and packets. It is possible to buy fresh vegetables from the greengrocer and vegetable section of the supermarket but also from the freezer section where they have been frozen just after being picked e.g. peas, sweet corn, broccoli…....many nutritional products come in tins and are far more convenient that way, such as pulses, baked beans…..curry sauces and pastes. They are considered fresh as long as they are within the best before date…....it makes no sense whatsoever, and flies in the face of the everyday reality of life, not to regard items in tins or which are frozen as being fresh…..For the purpose of this descriptor fresh ingredients means anything that has not gone off or is within its use by date including tins, packets and frozen foodstuffs.”
I’ve looked for case law about fresh ingredients but to no avail - is there any and does anyone have a link? And any general comments about the above written reasons greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Elaine
Tinned food is preserved
Frozen food is preserved.
The simple meal is not a good test imo but the ‘rules’ are fresh ingredients.
..For the purpose of this descriptor fresh ingredients means anything that has not gone off or is within its use by date including tins, packets and frozen foodstuffs.”
That cannot be right. Who in their right mind would want to prepare a meal with non-fresh ingredients? It must mean more than “hasn’t gone off yet”. Is h/she saying that vegetables don’t need to be chopped, for example, because you can buy them in tins or packs ready to cook. Suspect judge has been for a walk around new Fenwick food hall in town and been overwhelmed by all the freshness on display and decided to wax lyrical bout the nutritious value of food. What a revelation, that food is nutritious.
[ Edited: 6 Nov 2015 at 12:11 pm by Tom H ]CDLA/2934/2008
4. The cooking test is a hypothetical test requiring the tribunal to exercise its judgment in determining whether, in a general sense, the claimant can fairly be described as a person who is unable to cook a meal over a period of time. The determination is ultimately one of impression - Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] 4 All ER 162. The thought experiment requires an assessment of the claimant’s ability to prepare a meal involving chopping, cutting and peeling fresh ingredients, which include a wide range of hard vegetables.
CDLA/2934/2008
the claimant can fairly be described as a person who is unable to cook a meal over a period of time.
Much of the population.
..
That cannot be right. Who in their right mind would want to prepare a meal with non-fresh ingredients?
Much of the population.
Thanks everyone.
Tom - “wax lyrical ” is understatement and there is 13 pages of it - not just about vegetables however!
I will check out the case law - thank you Gareth.
Good points re preserved food vs fresh.
The initial draft of the PIP assessment criteria and regulations said that:
“A simple meal is considered a one-course meal for one from either fresh or frozen ingredients”
This was removed from the second draft, the govt response to the consultation and second draft noting:
“Several respondents – organisations in particular – expressed concern that use of a microwave was included and that a ‘simple meal’ could be prepared from frozen ingredients. It was questioned whether this implied that the Government thinks disabled people should not have a healthy diet.”
and consequently:
“A ‘simple meal’ is now defined as one made only from fresh, rather than fresh or frozen, ingredients.”
Thanks Billy.
All these comments are helpful.
I’m afraid I keep looking for the “like” button on here…..
The ordinary meaning in the context of the meaning in Moyna seems to be unprocessed, mint, raw, or natural: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fresh
I’m not sure it should make a lot of practical difference whether something like peas or sweetcorn were frozen or unfrozen, but it seems clear the intention is to exclude food where the preparation of it has been pre-performed such as ready chopped and washed vegetables or, of course, ready meals.
The judge’s reasoning here seems definitely erroneous, but whether the error is material may depend on what the claimant’s difficulty is. If it’s cognitive or motivation related, then I would posit that ability to cook a meal from multiple ingredients from tins, packets, and jars could be relevant evidence of ability to cook another meal from fresh ingredients. If they have a specific problem with, say, chopping then it may not be.
That’s insane. If the test is “can one put pre-chopped vegetables into a pan”, then this excludes cutting, chopping, peeling etc. altogether. It is to misinterpret the law to the point that it effectively applies a much stricter test than that envisaged by Parliament when the descriptors were written. Pre-prepared food is food that does not require preparation and makes a mockery of every descriptor except, possibly, 1(c), which refers only to cooking.
Alternatively, if we are to say that frozen and tinned vegetables are not prepared, merely preserved as “fresh”, then they still require preparation (cutting, chopping etc.) to make them ready for cooking. In this interpretation of the line of thinking of that Judge, it merely adds a additional hurdle of having to also open the tin/bag/packet as well as actually preparing the contents, which is not what I think was being got at.
In order to successfully argue the point to the Upper Tribunal, you need to think about how that reasoning interfered with a fair decision or practically affected the outcome.
Good Luck!
For what it’s worth, Medical Services’s PIP guidance manual states:
If a person could peel and chop then, in the absence of any other relevant functional restrictions, they can prepare a simple meal unaided. If they could peel and chop with the use of an aid, they carry out preparation with aids. If the person uses pre-chopped vegetables because they couldn’t peel and chop even with an aid, they need assistance to prepare a simple meal.
The decision above is useful.
“an assessment of the claimant’s ability to prepare a meal involving chopping, cutting and peeling fresh ingredients, which include a wide range of hard vegetables.”
In particular how many tinned or frozen vegetables are ‘hard’ (once defrosted)
Sorry I am not saying anything that is not said already but…..
This is a classic example of a judge not thinking about what might be the purpose of the words he needs to construe in the context in which they appear and instead thinking about one version of their literal meaning.
Why oh why would the legislator have felt the need to put in the legislation that if the claimant could cook with rotten food but not with fresh food then they should be excluded? What level of functional impairment / restriction on everyday activities would this in fact be testing?
Fresh food must have a meaning which is relevant to the context in which it appears - plainly that meaning is that it takes more preparation activities to get it ready than processed food.
It is very sad to see such a bad attempt at statutory construction.
You can argue on the meaning of fresh the other way around. IE fresh can only be the ingredients at the point of picked or slaughtered. Thus no one could complete a the main meal task unless they lived on a allotment. Clearly ludicrous as the alternate definition by your judge. Fresh and Processed therefore should be given ordinary meaning. IE food that is fresh has not been processed and food that is processed therefore cannot be fresh.
Of course if they did accept the definition of fresh at the point of picked or slaughtered and an appellant did live on an allotment then you would have to explain why they could or could not run around the place trying to catch the chicken to slaughter and why they could or could not double dig the spud bed.
[ Edited: 9 Nov 2015 at 02:13 pm by ikbikb ]Tell you what, I bet that judge doesn’t do the cooking in his/her house…