I know we're a nation of junk-food loving fatties whose idea of exercise extends no further than getting stuck into a bit of boxing on our Nintendo Wiis but do we really need to have the dangers of eating too much spelt out to us again? The Food Standards Agency is apparently considering the use of shock tactics to warn consumers of the evils of saturated fats. Its thinking is simple: by showing people that a couple of slices of buttered toast contain more saturated fat than four doughnuts, it will highlight the dangers lurking in innocent-looking food. People will heed the warning, eat less fatty food and, as a result, fewer will become obese or die from heart disease. Job done. Now as an ex-smoker, I'm not disputing that shock tactics can work. When I first saw the British Heart Foundation ad showing fatty deposits being squeezed from the artery of a 32-year-old it made me think long and hard about giving up - and shortly after I did. But there's a world of difference between cigarettes and food. Unlike fat, fags are not good for you in moderation. Shock tactics worked because the message was straightforward: smoking kills, so stop. With saturated fats, however, people need to reduce consumption, not cut it out altogether. And it's not just the makers of bread and butter that will be concerned by the FSA's plans. Meat, snacks and confectionery are also in the firing line. No wonder several of those who attended last week's stakeholder meeting have since expressed disquiet. To be fair, the FSA has made it clear shock tactics are only one element of its campaign. Once people's attentions have been grabbed, they will be given "the tools" to help them reduce their intake, it says. It's now up to the industry to hold the FSA to its word.