Your views on Foie Gras

[Alec John Moore]

Well, it seems that people under pressure of rising food prices, less money and time outside of work will respond by buying cheap processed food, whether we like it or not. I took part in the Live below the line campaign earlier this year where I fed myself for ?1 a day for 5 days so I know it is possible to live on inexpensive food. I wouldn't recommend it and I found it took a lot of my time thinking, planning and cooking. I also quite quickly became a little obsessive about my "rations" and my diet was not as nutritious as it normally is.

I agree with the many comments on the Guardian website that we can eat well if we shop around and choose our ingredients carefully, learn about nutritional balance and get the kids into the kitchen to help with the whole enjoyable process. However, the reality is clearly a challenge for many families and I can identify with that, reflecting on my own circumstances.

I wonder if the spirit of WW2 will be invoked by the government to meet the nutritional challenge of poor diets brought about by a combination of rising prices, reduced benefits and people's resistance to learn to look after themselves and their children.

[Huguenot]

Education, education, education...

I know someone who at one stage was so put off by the idea of vegetables that she wouldn't let them anywhere near her... "Do you want gravy with your beef?... Has it got herbs in it?... Well I expect so for flavour?... Then NO. and NO potatoes, carrots, peas etc. etc." :D

[Alec John Moore]

Yes, a lot of our attitudes to food are complex and inexplicable in the eyes of some, as this thread has shown.

[DaveR]

There has always been a correlation between income and health, and part of that is accounted for by diet. The problem with the Guardian article is that it latches on to some unsurprising data (price of fruit rises, comnsumption falls) and talks it up into an 'austerity crisis' story.

[Alec John Moore]

It would be odd if The Guardian didn't refer to Austerity Britain in its lead article. I haven't read or viewed all of the material on their website but it seems they are trying to explore the comlexity of the situation. What is worrying, if not surprising, it would seem to me, is that consumption of high fat and carb-based foods has risen, apparently as a result of the squeeze on income and time. We all know that convenience is a key factor in deciding how and what we eat. It shouldn't be surprising that poorer people behave in that way.

I'm thinking of the comments in respone to the articles on the Guardian website here but I get a real sense that it is for poor people to adjust to their worsening circumstances by carving out the time to shop sensibly and make wholesome meals for themselves and their families.

[DaveR]

"It would be odd if The Guardian didn't refer to Austerity Britain in its lead article"

That's my point. The data they rely on says that as prices of fruit and veg have gone up, consumption has fallen, and prices of junk have stayed stable and consequently consumption has increased, and that the changing consumption largely mirrors incomes. So far, so obvious. But this para:

"Austerity Britain is experiencing a nutritional recession, with rising food prices and shrinking incomes driving up consumption of fatty foods, reducing the amount of fruit and vegetables we buy, and condeming people on the lowest incomes to an increasingly unhealthy diet"

is way over the top. What it should say is something like:

"the current economic climate appears to be exacerbating an already well established pattern whereby good health, including healthy diet, correlates strongly with income, and many people on the lowest incomes (for any number of reasons) reject a healthy diet in favour of one full of fat and sugar. There is no signficant connection between this phenomenon and austerity/recession and any financial/economic measure is unlikely to provide a long term solution"

But that wouldn't be very newsworthy.

To my mind, the interesting thing here is that it asks serious questions about how interventionist the State should be. If you wanted to use the economic power of the State to improve public health, how about paying a proportion of all benefits in the form of vouchers than can only be used to buy healthy food? It's logical, but it's far too Big Brother-esque (in the Orwellian sense) for most of us.

I doubt that there is anyone in the UK who is compelled by economic circumstances to eat shit food on a long-term basis. There may be gaps in education and information, there may be issues about time and facilities to cook healthy food, but there's also a lot of people making their own choices. Freedom is messy, but preferable to the alternative.

[ianr]

> Some people are scared of food that DOESN'T come in a box.

Reminds me of this piece of modern-day half-joking phobia, from Woman's Hour, 29 October and 3 November: interview with an author of Cook on a Shoestring. Interviewer first:

"fish ... but it is very expensive. Is there any way of getting round that?"

"Well what I tend to do is buy whole fish."

"Now that sounds a bit scary."

"It does sound a bit scary but, I mean, you're paying for a premium if someone's preparing it for you ... filleting, especially a round fish, is very very straightforward."

[interviewer, laughing] "That's not so sure."

"It _is_ straightforward. You just need a good knife ... something that people often don't have in their kitchen, so go and invest in a decent knife, fillet your fish, or get your fishmonger to do it. Take the bones home ..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010d2x7. Piece starts at 26'18" in.

[civilservant]

Depends on what you mean by expensive and the amount of time, effort and money people are prepared to spend on feeding themselves.

I've heard that at the start of the 20th century, a working class family spent about two-thirds of its income on food; by mid-century, expenditure on food had halved to a third of income. But by the end of the 20th century, it had halved again to around a sixth of income.

Of course it means eating rubbish bread and pizza and imported battery chicken, but food has become less important to people precisely because it is so cheap. Why go out and grow your own veg, or trudge from greengrocer to baker to fishmonger looking for bargains when it can all be ready almost instantly at the touch of a microwave button. Poorer folk go to Iceland for a packet of burgers for a pound, the better-off go to M&S for ready-chopped carrots, but essentially, food is now about instant gratification... (so that we have more time to watch The Great British Bake-Off or Come Dine with Me?)

At one level, I'd be concerned about Austerity Britain, but that's because I'm a middle-class Guardian reader and would like everyone to eat their five a day and cut down on cheap meat and unhealthy grease. But is anyone actually starving?

[El Pibe]

Whole sole and plaice is on sale every other day or so in sainsburys, incredibly cheap and delicious meal takes about 10 minutes.

[Alec John Moore]

Interesting observation, civilservant. In developing countries today the situation for poor people in terms of disposable income spent on food is similar to our situation at the start of the 20th century. The concern there is not just about whether or not poor people are starving in the way they have so terrifyingly in East Africa in the 1980s but that large numbers of people are under nourished, often resulting in restricted physical development and educational under achievement. An earlier post referred to Jamie Oliver's attempts at improving th nutritional value of school dinners and how that was met with sometimes vehement resistance by parents. The challenges are substantial and complex.

The point I take from aricle in The Guardian is that with the squeeze on incomes and time combined with the lack of awareness of the relative ease with which we can make nutritous food without breaking the bank and the strong urge to take the line of least resistance when it comes to feeding the family, we will see increased obesity and the other problems associated with poor nutrition.

I also have to declare that I am concerend about the wider implications of increased reliance on highly processed food in that it supports the globalised system of food production over locally grown and distributed seasonal foods.

[civilservant]

Thanks AJM.

I asked 'is anyone actually starving' in the UK and a bit of research shows that hunger IS still a problem.

According to Action for Children, "68% of Action for Children family support services are seeing children who are hungry... Many children (...) don't eat regular hot meals. Their families are often facing some impossible choices like whether to pay their rent or heating bills, or pay for their weekly food shop. They can't do both. ... A gift of just ?10 could pay for a week of hot meals for a hungry child, or help us to run breakfast clubs so children can get a healthy start to their day." http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/meal

?10 sounds like a bargain to me if it can buy a whole week's healthy hot meals for someone who needs them.

A chance to practice what we preach on healthy eating instead of taking to the EDF to denounce others' poor nutritional choices... Any takers?

[DaveR]

This has come up before on another thread, and this is what I posted there. I think it applies equally here:

"This was the response from Martin Narey (head of Barnardos 2005-2011 and ex-chair of the End Child Poverty coalition) to the Save the Children campaign that suggested that poor families routinely cannot afford to buy enough food:

"Child poverty in the UK is very real, but it?s not the simple poverty that Save the Children describes. Low income is certainly at the heart of it, but it?s also about poverty of aspiration, education and parenting. But I know why Save the Children is talking about missed meals: it captures public attention. Many times when I ran Barnardo?s ? and during the five years in which child poverty was our No 1 priority ? I declined to sign up to campaigns suggesting that British families do not get enough in benefits to feed or clothe their children. I did so for two reasons: because it?s not true, but also because such campaigns suggest that if we met the very basic requirements of a hot meal and warm clothing, people would think that poverty had been lifted.

This isn?t to say that there are not emergencies when families do need urgent help with food or clothing. But they are generally short-term and caused by an administrative glitch, a marital separation, because money has been lost and sometimes, frankly, because it has been squandered on drink or drugs. Such crises are not symptomatic of the welfare state?s failure to provide families with enough money for the basics of life"

I can't post a link to the whole article because of the Times subscription stuff."

It's important to distinguish between the crises that can affect families from time to time (and where I do support charities that provide help) and any wider generalisations about people in the UK starving.

[Alec John Moore]

I agree with Martin Narey that poverty isn't straightforward and I know why charities like Save campaign and raise funds on the basis of simplistic, emotive, headline grabbing messages. I don't like the approach that charities such as Save take but they do it because they are convinced that is how they will get people to sign up to their campaigns and make donations.

But the Guardian coverage is about an apparent nutrition deficit and there are many other reports indicating that poor families are not feeding themselves or their children in a way that will maintain their health. It's a confusing picture too when you read reports such as this from The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9658914/Food-has-become-too-cheap-in-developed-world-industry-boss-says.html

which say that food is too cheap and we are throwing it away in vast quantities although there is a reduction in this more recently.

[DaveR]

I agree that the Guardian article is about a different issue - put very simply, poor food rather than not enough food. But there is an overlap between the two i.e. in neither case is the key issue short term economic conditions, rather more complex questions about education, aspiration, social mobility etc.

[civilservant]

Agree that the roots of the problem may well be systemic and long-term, and linked to poverty of education and aspiration.

However there needs to be a safety net for people suffering in the short term. And if children are deprived as a result of feckless parenting or some other cause, then they are facing an additional handicap. That's why I'd support the work of charities that try to plug the gap.

[civilservant]

See Ian Jack's excellent piece in last Saturday's Guardian:

"The 'nutrition gap' between Britain's rich and poor is vast ? and wicked.

The gulf between people's diets is worse today than it was when George Orwell wrote The Road to Wigan Pier in 1936. However complex the reasons, the fact is shocking" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/23/rich-poor-food-nutrition-gap-ian-jack

He ends with this paragraph:

"My neighbourhood has some fine food shops: a cheese emporium, a greengrocer's, a well regarded butcher's and a recently opened fishmonger's. Walking past them the other day, I was suddenly struck by how much this Toytown high street depends not on old traditions but on money ? the City money that has come to settle here. Visit any of these shops to buy something healthy, your weekly Eatwell Plate allowance of ?16.70 will very soon be gone. A halibut fillet, a tiny pyramid of goats' cheese, a bunch of grapes ? pfft! In the end, how can you describe this gulf between the rich and the poor, more extreme than in Orwell's day, other than to say it's wicked?"

[Voyageur]

Yes, yes - all very Guardian.

Go for a shop in areas in a 2 mile radius from where I live in CP and you can buy some very cheap meat and lovely veg - mainly from Lidl, local asian supermarkets etc. We don't all live in Kensington.

[Huguenot]

I read it, it was jumped up.

There is undoubtedly a silliness about delicatessens, but it has nothing to do with food for the poor.

[DaveR]

Another Guardian piece where the main narrative is entirely detached from the headline idea. His real conclusion is that the poor eat unhealthy food because they like it, but it's too patronising to say so. So he doesn't and instead says (somewhat strangely) that it's 'wicked'. As for the stuff about his local shops - it kind of loses any credibility when he talks about halibut. Has he never heard of mackerel?

[Huguenot]

Marie Antoinette in 'let them eat cake' shocker

[????]

I,d suggest that all the Guardian Readers who tuck into a morally ambiguous and very expensive product such as Foie Gras maybe give it up and donate the money to a food charity....not holding my breath tho, or my stomach in

[Annette Curtain]

Add your winnings on the gee gee's and problem solved.

Mind you, the poor could eat the dead horses

Fray Bentos anybody ?

:)

[Alec John Moore]

I thought it was a very thoughtful piece. I read it a bit differently from some others posting on this thread. Maybe it isn't so shocking to face the fact that some people's behaviour flies in the face of apparent common sense. That applies to all of us if we were to be honest and it finds a particular place in food and drink in our lives. About 30 years ago I decided to reduce the amount of salt I eat and stopped adding it automatically to my meals. Now I am acutely aware of how salty processed foods are. I'm sure that has helped keep my blood pressure low but I do find there are times when it is difficult to resist comfort foods with high proportions of sugar and saturated fat.

Despite being someone who is very interested in food and nutrition I didn't know about the Eatwell Plate. So, where is the public awareness campaign that might change people's behaviour to a more "sensible and rational" use of limited resources to improve nutrition?

I also think that civilservant's use of the last para in Ian Jack's article may have been a jab at our very own LL. Apologies if I have misinterpreted that.

[civilservant]

AJM, you are right. I did use the last para to focus attention on our very own LL and the vociferous campaign to replace an Iceland, which is at least affordable to the many, with a store which only a few can afford to shop in. We have many of the latter on LL and environs. Do we really need another one?

I too found it was a very thoughtful article (as per Ian Jack's usual contribution, and of course he doesn't write exclusively for the Guardian). However, I thought I'd have a bit of fun with the knee-jerk reactions I knew my post would trigger - and I wasn't wrong!

Eating well is a relatively new concept, just like the dangers of smoking.

Here is the link to the Eatwell plate http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eatwell-plate.aspx and other stuff put out by Change4Life http://www.nhs.uk/Change4Life/Pages/change-for-life.aspx

One reason for the low visibility of this sort of thing is probably that it's put out by the state and therefore not seen to be sexy in the way that private sector enterprises such as alcohol, tobacco and other drugs are.

[civilservant]

and see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20511602 where the Beeb ;-) says "People in England - and across the rest of the UK for that matter - have some of the worst lifestyles in Europe, particularly in terms of drinking habits and obesity levels."

Socio-economics have some impact - "those from poorer backgrounds are more likely to lead unhealthy lives. Smoking - the leading cause of avoidable deaths - is now twice as common among lower socio-economic groups" - but "the largest rises in alcohol consumption have been seen in the higher income groups in recent years."

We knew all that already of course, but the report also quotes a public health expert speculating that the universal safety net provided by the NHS might have a lot to do with our propensity to indulge in bad health behaviours - because we'll be treated for free, unlike just about anyone anywhere else in the world.