Public health and food

[marnanel]

Someone mentioned the current panic about "how to cure the obesity epidemic" over dinner, and it led to talking about public health campaigns generally.

I have a simple suggestion, but I think it's worth saying because I haven't heard anyone mention it yet. A few years ago, people would buy unleaded petrol if they were particularly environmentally conscious, but because it cost more, most people didn't. Then the government altered the taxes so it cost less, and suddenly everyone was buying it.

So here. If you have not much money and not much time-- and these often go together, because people paid little work long hours-- the most easily-available and most filling food is not the stuff that's good for you. Why not? If we're really interested in making sure people eat food that's good for them, why aren't we subsidising takeaways and supermarkets to produce food that's cheap and needs minimal preparation?

Comments

[hairyears]

We are approaching a state where chronic ill-heath with profitable interventions is a desirable state for the foreign corporations funding all significant parliamentary parties.

Worse, the poor and the obese are a valuable stock for both the Labour and Conservative parties, as a target for electorally-advantageous hate-based propaganda.