Sir; There are a number of commercial reasons why a company chooses to rebrand: to herald a move away from the old way of doing things; to update the image; to foster a particular attribute, et al.

However, no reason is mutually exclusive and it has to be matched with real, actual and tangible benefits to customers. And for this reason alone it seems that Morrisons' supposed evolution of its brand identity comes across as slightly shallow and meaningless ('Time to go green... and yellow', The Grocer, 28 April, p7).

Aside from only subtle changes to the logo - which many customers may not even notice - I am unable to see any value for the customer in the modification.

Why do customers care or how do they profit from new livery on carrier bags, vehicles, advertising and free food packaging?

Indeed, rather than enhance the brand, rebranding can be seen as mere window dressing and a pure waste of money to the consumer - just remember the repositioning of high street bank and building society Abbey - unless the rebranding is matched with additional customer benefits, lower prices, increased service levels, fresher food. Morrisons could fall into the trap so often seen in circumstances of this ilk - becoming a pale imitation of its projected image.

Asda funds cuts out of its own margins Dominic Burch Head of corporate PR, Asda



Sir; Joanna Blythman's concerns on banana prices at Asda are misplaced ('High human cost - that's Asda price', The Grocer, 28 April, p23).

We take great pride in keeping prices as low as possible, but we do not cut corners in the process. When we choose to cut the price of bananas, we fund it out of our own margin. The price we pay to our supplier remains fixed.

It is also daft to say our rivals are forced to follow suit - the price they charge is up to them. But if they do, it is also up to them to demonstrate how they are paying for it.

It is worth remembering the average family that shops at Asda only has £146 left to spend each month after all their bills have been taken care of. Loose change perhaps to the likes of Joanna.

For millions of others, though, Asda lowering prices on everyday items saves them money. Money that they can spend on improving their lives.

Mr Kipling will be HVO-free this year George Uden Head of product development, Manor Bakeries; part of Premier Foods



Sir; On April 21, you published an article regarding Parfetts' policy against trans fat ('Inspired ultimatum? Or sweet nothing?' The Grocer, 21 April, p29). The article says Mr Kipling has so far not given any indication of how it plans to reformulate products to remove HVOs. I'd like to take this opportunity to do so.

As a responsible food manufacturing company, Premier is constantly seeking to improve its products through the primary elements of nutrition, quality and taste.

Mr Kipling has been removing HVOs from all of its products with the aim to complete the exercise by the end of June 2007. The majority of Mr Kipling products are already HVO free and the rest are on target to be completed in the next two months.

We will continue to listen to consumers and improve our products to provide greater choice and healthier options.

'Unprincipled'? This is an outrageous slur Owen Warnock Partner and food law expert, Eversheds



Sir; Health and consumer groups criticised the new code for non-broadcast advertising of high fat, salt, sugar (HFSS) foods. However, the regulation has to be different from broadcast because these media are so different.

There is currently no evidence of the impact of non-broadcast advertising on children's consumption of HFSS foods. Ofcom's rules on the other hand were evidence-based.

I therefore regard it as outrageous that some of the groups that criticised the non-broadcast rules are reported as having castigated food manufacturers as "unprincipled" for targeting children.

In the 1960s and 1970s food and drink were promoted to children through ads, competitions and cigarette card-type promotions etc, but there were very few obese children. Why has promoting these foods become "unprincipled" now when the causes of obesity can be more closely linked to societal changes, such as less outdoor play and a growth in the popularity of computer games?

White bread is not unhealthy Gordon Polson Director, Federation of Bakers



Sir; I am disappointed that white bread continues to be referred to on your website as 'having little or no nutritional value' following the launch of your Weigh It Up! campaign against the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). You must know the nutritional contribution of white bread to the health of the nation, particularly children. It is wrong to counter the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the Nutrient Profiling Model by pedalling the myth that white bread is unhealthy.



The Editor writes: It's all relative. Some white breads are full of goodness and we applaud recent NPD in this category as it brings more fibre into kids' diets. But we use white bread to illustrate the absurdity of banning, for example, Bran Flakes, which are full of fibre and other nutrients, from advertising on children's TV, while a loaf that's highly processed and devoid of fibre is OK.