Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It was a thoughtful article, although he accepts that he has essentially no new insight to add to that of Orwell, 75 years ago:


"Yet one couldn't help feeling, like Orwell, that it was a shame, and that more than poverty was to blame ? which must also be true now, because it can hardly be price alone that drives low-income families towards high-fat, processed food when the price of processed foods has risen by 36% over the past five years, more than any other food category. A fact may have to be faced: some people like it, and, given the huge power of the food business, coaxing them in a healthier direction may be no easier now than it was for society ladies in the 1930s."


The expression 'food poverty' begins to sound a bit misleading when it is accepted that it has little to do with poverty per se, but appears rather to be the result of a complex correlation between income, education, class etc. Put bluntly, just as it is misleading to say that there are many people in the UK who cannot afford to eat enough, it is equally misleading to say that there are many who cannot afford to eat healthily. Rather, there appear to be many people who do not eat healthily, and current economic circumstances appears to be causing that number to increase.


I would be interested to see if there is any research into what happens when people's financial circumstances change - do they gravitate from pies to salad, or plummet from halibut to hamburgers, as income changes?


I should add that this is not an argument against immediate support for families or individuals in crisis who genuinely cannot buy food and pay the bills at a given time, but this doesn't seem to me to be the wider issue that these articles are concerned with.

I see it a bit differently and I think we agreed earlier that poverty needs a complex definition to be meaningful and useful if it is to be addressed. For me, the articles we are referring to are placed and read in the context of "Austerity Britain" as we might expect newspapers like The Guardian to do. But, just as it is annoying to see a simplistic or direct link between low income and unhealthy eating habits, we are unlikely to see a correlation between increased income and healthier eating.


I don't accept the speculation of the public health expert quoted by civilservant that there's a perception that the state will look after us regardless of how reckless our behaviour is. Hogarth's image of Gin Lane springs to mind:


http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Mothers-Ruin/

  • 3 weeks later...

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lets hope any of you that enjoy this odious

> product never have a funnel shoved down your neck

> and are force feed. Disgraceful.



Unlikely. I plan to enjoy some tonight with a good Sauternes from G&B.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Parkdrive Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Lets hope any of you that enjoy this odious

> > product never have a funnel shoved down your

> neck

> > and are force feed. Disgraceful.






>

>

> Unlikely. I plan to enjoy some tonight with a good

> Sauternes from G&B.



I hope someone sticks a funnel down your throat and feeds it to you, and see how much you enjoy that. Have a good Christmas.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marmora Man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Parkdrive Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Lets hope any of you that enjoy this odious

> > > product never have a funnel shoved down your

> > neck

> > > and are force feed. Disgraceful.

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > Unlikely. I plan to enjoy some tonight with a

> good

> > Sauternes from G&B.

>

>

> I hope someone sticks a funnel down your throat

> and feeds it to you, and see how much you enjoy

> that. Have a good Christmas.


I'd respect you more if you could come up with a better insult.

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lets hope any of you that enjoy this odious product never have a funnel shoved down your neck

> and are force feed. Disgraceful.


Let's hope that anybody who likes boiled potatoes never have their skin peeled off them and then dropped into boiling water.


Now can you see the inanity your argument?

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Explain the important issues Loz then? You know them do you? I doubt it.


What?? Are you saying that banning Foie Gras is one of the most important issues facing the world today? Really? Wow.


On a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 is really important), foie gras scores about a 0.00000000000000000000001

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lets hope any of you that enjoy this odious

> product never have a funnel shoved down your neck

> and are force feed. Disgraceful.



Or have the misfortune to be raised in a field, then slaughtered and eaten - oh, wait.. that's organic farming too aint it? See parky, thing is, imagining oneself as livestock has a limited effect - 'slike anthropomorphism - it just doesn't work when dead piggy/ducky/moo-cow/lambsy/chick-chick or goosey-goosey is delicious.


As for the human race going 'to pot when they don't think this is wrong' that is liberal whiney nonsense. Given the farming methods of our forefathers, and how we have become more and more humane over the years, such a practice is a throwback so maybe it is a backward glance on our way FROM pot to wherever it is we end up but nothing to hate oneself for (unless one is a vegan natch).

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz, you are comparing a 'live' duck with a

> potato?

>

> Shame on you, if you can't see the difference.



Now you know why it took hours to pluck that bloody spud...



ETA: I know - I really shouldn't persecute the veggie-minded, it must be a particularly trying time of year when beast and fowl are being consumed with gluttonous glee and their juices run down our fat smug faces whilst butcher-dodgers contemplate another nut roast or tofu surprise.

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz, you are comparing a 'live' duck with a potato?

>

> Shame on you, if you can't see the difference.


You compared a duck (actually it's generally a goose) with a human, so you started it. Also, humans have a gag reflex whereas ducks and geese don't, so your original comparison was useless anyway.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Labour seems to be taxing the many to get to the few in so many policies they have implemented. Look at the farmer situation: yes there are some rich farmers but the vast majority are not and they are, in my mind, the very definition of a working person - the very people this country relies upon. Most are family businesses. They were re-running some of the Simon Reeves programmes on the Lake District and it was filmed just after Covid but they featured an 18 year old farmer who was took over his parents farm after they both died of cancer within months of each other. He and his school friends were mucking in to keep the farm going and continue the family business. Today, he would have been hit by a big tax bill too. The challenge is Rachel Reeves' budget desperately needs growth and with the news today that the economy barely grew on, ostensibly, fears of what the budget was going to hit people with and the fact post budget many businesses are saying costs will have to go up due to the increases in employee NI but at the same time saying wage growth, and even jobs, will be impacted we may be heading towards a very nasty perfect storm. Public services desperately need reform not just more money. Wes Streeting said that reform was needed in the NHS and he was talking in a manner more akin to a Tory health secretary than a Labour one!
    • I'm certainly not surly - it's Friday, so I'm in a delightful mood.  As Earl Aelfheah said, the money has to come from somewhere. But Labour new that hiking fuel as well as employee NIC in would be a step too far - for businesses and consumers. It was the right decision for this moment in time. Suggesting that someone who's against fuel duty increase on this occasion is against and fuel duty full stop is quite a leap. Why do you demonise everyone who doesn't think that owning a car is a cardinal sin?  I'm not sure using Clarkson as an example of your average farmer holds much weight as an argument, but you know that already, Mal. 
    • Hope it's making others smile too! I don't know the background or how long it's been there 😊
    • If you are against the increase in fuel duty then you are surly against fuel duty full stop.  It has not kept up with inflation, I'm talking about getting it back on track.  Ultimately road user charging is the solution. Labour will probably compromise on agricultural land inheritance by raising the cap so it generally catches the Clarksons of the world who are not bothered about profits from land beyond, in his case, income from a highly successful TV series and the great publicity for the farm shop and pub
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...