No, sorry, I haven't quite finished for today.

The other morning, I was listening to the radio while driving, when the news came on and one of the story's was about how scientist's, nutritionist's and dieticians can't make up their minds as to whether the "atkins diet" is healthy or not.

Having read some of the atkins books, while I realise that it's rather different view's could create controversy about dietary techniques, they still give you "food for thought".

As a species of "hunter gatherers", we have only been eating refined carbohydrates i.e. rice, potatoes, flour, etc etc for a couple of thousand years. Since the human race discovered farming. We have only been eating refined sugar for a couple of hundred years. This can really be traced back to the "industrial revolution" (yes, yes, I know that sugar was established before that, but only since industrialisation has it been cheaply available to the worlds general populace).

Now, as pointed out by Dr Atkins, that even though his diet is "low carbohydrate", most of the health problems associated with the "developed world" seem to have come about since the introduction of sugar into our diet. You would have to read some of his, or other dietary writings, to fully appreciate the difference between carbohydrate energy and sugar energy. As well as why it seems that our various governments don't do anything about reducing the amounts of such products that are consumed.

As far as I can see, it comes down to 3 words.

Vested interests.

Profit.

I'll see if I can dig up a little more about this later

regards

John

Well, I have managed to have a good think today, while doing a minor modification to our domestic heating system, I came round to thinking that this shouldn't be just my words linking, what I think are excellent and informative articles in the guardian and observer, but also some other stuff that I consider relevant, in the larger picture of life.

So, what am I on about ? Well, Thursday is shopping day. And yes, Clare usually goes to the local branch of Tesco's.

Nothing odd in that ! But, when it comes to the shopping, I'm not very good at it. If I do the weekly shop, I usually manage to spend too much. If Clare does the shop, then she feels it's a personal mission to spend as little as possible.

Now, this is what makes changing our shopping habits very difficult - well, not so difficult but it is not always easy to remember what should and should not really be bought at the supermarket.

Meat and veg are often the hardest habits too change. Especially as a lot of us under 50, don't remember a time without the convenience of the supermarket.

This means, that it takes an occassional visit to the local high street to remind us of "oh, so and so the bakers used to be there". Or "where's the fishmonger that used to be there?". These are the small shops, that sometimes didn't have or had run out of whatever it was that you where after. Those same small shops who wrapped things for us, with the individual service.

For fuck sake, even sainsbury's are advertising that they put the first few items purchased into a carrier bag for us.

Well, Whoopdey fucking doo! That's what I call service - NOT!

Ask any shop assistant in any given flavour of supermarket a very slightly obscure question about any given food product, and they will either read the label, and try and bullshit you or just give you the "sorry, I don't really know. That isn't my section" excuse while wearing an obvious "how the fuck should I know" expression. This is not a critiscm of shop assistant's. It's just the way that major retail employers only want staff who blindly stack the shelves, making sure any brand label is facing forward, so you make the mental link with that brands latest advertising campaign, and yes, you've guessed it, buy more shopping.

I find it rather a shame, that people of today are either too stupid or too complacent, to be able to see through the "way of life" that advertisers what us too have.

I mean, if a woman buys whatever make of sanitary product then she will end up with the life style of a TV model, and be able too prance about on a beach of white "caster sugar" sand? Get real. Better still, wake up and get a life.

If the woman who buys the whatever make of sanitary product, is 20 stone (280 pounds for the US or 128 kilo's for Europe) with a face like a Bulldog licking piss off of a stinging nettle, then she will still weigh 20 stones and be ugly as fuck. She might feel more comfortable at certain times of the year, but that's all.

Kids advertising. I think that parts of Scandanavia have got the right idea. Apparently, they have banned it completely. Lets allow our children to grow up without having macdonalds, BK, pizzahut, etc etc forces down their throats. Then maybe, as parents, who afterall, only want the best for their children, we can encourage our children to eat a little more of what is good for them i.e. food that is unpolluted with christ knows what sweetners, flavourings and preservatives. And not to end up with the "it doesn't taste like that at ????"

Also, there's the point that some of these "manufactured products" do taste "Sooooooooo Nice!" VVV hard to resist. I mean, lets face it, kid's aren't the only ones who are driven by the primeval flavour mentality. i.e. bitter and sour might mean that that food is rotten or toxic and sweet and creamy flavours must by their very nature be safe and edible.

With that, I'll leave you for today.

regards

John

Well, I know that I haven't really had time to do anything with this blog for a couple of months, but I have been rolling a couple of thoughts through my mind.

I have (for some strange, inexplicable reason) been pondering chicken and bacon. Well, more to the fact that I saw a programme on the TV about bacon sold online.

One of the main points being that the vast majority of bacon sold in UK supermarkets, has had water added. Now when "they" do this, some of the original flavour is lost, and monosodium glutomate is added (for that genuine meaty bacon flavour?). In my digging around, I find that chicken is also subjected to this process - though not usually with the MSG.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall something in my secondary school history lesson about millers adding chalk and other cheaper white powders to flour. This process was outlawed, and one of the results was the starting of "Weights and Measures" in the UK (I believe this is now one of the functions of the County Councils - again, I may be wrong).

So, if your chicken breast portion, shrinks dramatically during cooking or your rashers of bacon reduce to less than half (but leaving a meaty tasting, if slightly bitter residue) in the grill pan, you will know that "you've been had".

A crime, a crime, I hear you say. Well, no. These are "approved" techniques. Approved by who ? not fucking me. Either UK or EU government - most definitely. But also, approved of by the very bastards who produce the meat products - why, because it puts less meat on your plate and more money in their bank balances.

Purely by chance, last weekend, I was waiting to deliver to one of the stores that I "do" (milk, though that's if you can call, "standardised, pasturised, homogenised whole milk" milk!) and I came across "this" © The Observer 2003.

Once again, I was lost for words. It is beyond belief that both the producer (farmer) and manufacturer (parasite, bastard, etc etc) have been allowed to get away with things like this.

I am fully aware, that the outbreaks of "e-coli (154, I think)" that have actually killed some old people and possibly children is supposed to be because of "CONTAMINATION". But contaminated with what?

I'll tell you what, "faecal matter". Translated into english, to you and me, thats

SHIT !

'Cos that's exactly where the e-coli 154 bacteria comes from!

Right, I'll get back to you later, because just writing this is making me very very angry!

regards

John