https://www.bjp-online.com/2020/08/daily-bread-a-weeks-worth-of-food-around-the-world/ These photos I think suggest that one does not have to be rich to eat healthily.
Wealth implies having plenty of money. Eating healthily implies not eating highly processed foods. In Britain it is often stated that poor families have poor diet because of lack of money. I would suggest that too many families don't know how, why, or are just too lazy to cook healthy low fat, low sugar, low salt, high fibre, and modest but adequate protein meals. Junk food outlets seem to be concentrated in less well off areas.
Yep, I just wanted to check that you were going to trot out the too lazy line before I moved on to ignoring your bigotry.
You know, I may disagree with much that is said here, I even ignore two people, I am rude myself sometimes and on occasions have even apologised and rightly so, but to me here is another case of unneeded rudeness. WHY? There are nicer ways to disagree unless it makes you feel superior. There was NOTHING wrong with this comment "These photos I think suggest that one does not have to be rich to eat healthily.", it certainly in NO way has warranted such rudeness As I have said before this is a "forum" and not Facebook, if you want to be unnecessarily rude PM the person don't do it in public.
Well said, I agree, and I am pleased you have not risen to a rude reply, it shows integrity. All I would say is that you need to remember there are many out there complain that their children/families can not afford decent food, clothes, homes some who that claim benefits but looooove to smoke, gamble etc etc. As a single father of three I had a simple choice Pub or feed my sons, smoke or cloth my sons, gamble or heat the house. In fact I could do anyone a full health three course meal for four for £10, the shopping has been done again this week, fruit is top, tinned, peaches, pears, strawberries, oranges, rhubarb and so on, all health and unlike supposed fresh remains fresh in can, just tip out the syrup, wash and serve Make this today, it is great £3 feeds 4 LARGE portions minimum, starters, tomato soup, home made, £1, desert, Fruit cocktail, four tins, strawberry, apple, etc etc £3 total £7.00 https://the1940sexperiment.com/2016/03/13/the-original-lord-woolton-pie-recipe-no-151/
There is a lot of politics in the rationales behind lower social class people tending to eat less healthily and a lot of if simply designed to exploit the fact to tub-thump their particular dogma, be it poverty, exploitation by malign global enterprises, ignorance, etc. Governments favour blaming advertising, because they can do something about that without inflaming the well-organised pressure groups, or upsetting larger voters. Little of the reasoning they present goes below facile one-dimensional thinking. I was a spokesman on it 15 years ago and was in government meetings with highly politically motivated organisations like Sustain, but the only thing close to a credible argument I ever heard was in a TV programme by Prof Robert Winston of Imperial College, who was very popular around that time. What he said was that it was a very deeply-seated survival instinct. He showed how in all ages up to the last 50 years, survival, particularly of less well-off people, who were the vast majority of us, depended on their intake of fatty foods. Nature had evolved to make most of us prefer sweet and fatty tastes. He demonstrated it with chips I remember, and showed that preference for low fat and sugar was an acquired taste starting with the richest. His point was that as affluence increased in post-War countries, intake of food, especially snacking, but also size of main meals, increased very greatly and far faster than ingrained survival instincts tastes could evolve. At the same time, cars and labour-saving devices of all kinds at work and in the home became affordable to ordinary people. He reckoned it could take hundreds of years for tastes of the lowest in society to change out of preferring the survival foods that had been so important to them. It was not just personal taste, but a whole social environment around those foods. At one event in London, in a break between slanging eachother off from the podium, I had coffee with the leading DOH spokeswoman and she told me they knew perfectly well that was the case, but had decided that the amount of physical work and exercise required to counterbalance it was inconceivable in the modern world. They therefore decided to campaign against HFSS advertising and against the food manufacturers, in order to get the fat and sugar taken out, since it was highly unlikely people could be persuaded to eat less of it, or to compensate with enough exercise. Must say I have not heard any more coherent reasoning since.
For what it's worth, I have you on ignore. Sometimes I 'show ignored messages' on a thread if I feel I have the energy to deal with people I generally have on ignore, so I saw this response. Edit: and if you feel blaming poor people for being lazy isn't insulting, then you can put me on ignore too.
Hear, hear. I did have Stephen on ignore for quite some time. I think that button is going to be pressed again. Virtue signalling as this thread shows has reinforced my feelings of anger and nausea.
No, he didn't. He gave three options - don't know how to, don't know why they should, and then the too lazy comment. It would perhaps been more politic to use the phrase 'not bothered', but that is a sensitivity not all of us may have.
It's fine, I already know you support the same position that people are just too lazy to solve their own problems from our previous conversation.
How many families in the UK do you believe are 'too lazy' too cook healthy food? 0.1% 1%? 10%? 25%? Or is it just perhaps an equally lazy and repetitive trope dragged out to further demonise people in a Daily Mail style attack?
It was one of three possibilities. Tony picked that possibility for criticism, I think, because it suits his political position. Education of children, by parents and the formal education system is weak on nutrition and home economics, across all parts of society. A significant amount of ex[pensive food is just as bad nutritionally as junk food. Also just look at the ever so middle class BBC website cookery pages. Pages and pages of over sweet, over fat cakes and desserts. In my original post I draw attention to the way photography was used to make a point. Of course the photographer chose the subjects to make a point. The two examples from Brazil in particular illustrated that point. One nation, two life styles. America (USA) was mentioned in the text. It would have been inappropriate to photograph a really obese recognisable child in that context.
Tony, if the comment had been "Don't know how, don't know why, are in too much of a hurry" would you have responded in the same way? I am sure some people cook unhealthily because they really can't be bothered and others are too lazy to cook so they order a take away or find fast food. Of course, they could feel too busy to cook. Anyone who actually cooks, as opposed to reheating a ready meal, cannot in all fairness be called lazy. To be clear, I don't mean that they do these things occasionally but they do so regularly. The main reason people don't eat healthily is ignorance of what is healthy.
Learning's opening comment was that you don't have to be rich to eat healthily, and in the very next breath, equated not eating healthily with being lazy. It's a direct tie, often dragged out, between being poor and being lazy. Anyone in this thread who's not spent 20 years investigating the evidence and claims 'the main reason' for anything, needs to reflect on their specialism. I know why I do things, I have an inkling about why a few other people do things, only peer reviewed scientific research has a view on why lots of people do something. It's got nothing to do with my political position @Learning and everything to do with the associated between lazy, fat and poor and somehow, the lazy being a driver for one or other of the two. How many lazy rich people eat out 3 or 4 times a week and then pay a personal trainer to put them through their paces, while their nanny looks after the kids, and their paid cleaner keeps the house tidy? They're not eating healthily, nor are they even cooking for themselves. The continued agenda of 'the poor are the cause of their own problems' and 'fat people are the cause of their own obesity' is offensive.
My son spent a year working in a MacDonalds in Manchester. Several multi-childrened families ate there daily. They were in temporary housing of the one room to sleep in, stay out all day, variety. They had no facilities to cook, the kids probably had never even seen the inside of a kitchen. MacDonald’s meals were all they knew. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the subsistence component of whatever benefit they were in receipt of was based on fast-food retail prices.
