Another interesting read (food allergies or food intolerance).....

Food allergies ? or food intolerance ?


What's the difference ? Nicely explained in the above link, along with a lot of the bullshit that surrounds such issues.

And yes, I do have a friend who is a coeliac so have a vague understanding of it. Like-wise, I have a couple of friends who're type 1 diabetics and understand about the insulin and sugar thing (of course, there's lots about these kind of conditions that I don't know or understand - just that I have enough knowledge to make sure that I don't give them anything that might be an issue to them).....

The article explains a lot of stuff, including why a lot of this is complete bollocks. Not in the sense that these conditions aren't real, but about how many people have/suffer from them.

If they took the appropriate/proper route to find out, then the medical experts would tell them to fuck off, like the thick hypochondriac fools that they are........

The thing that the article alludes to that makes me wonder, is that if we, as a species, have been consuming such foods for millennia,  then apart from those who do have a properly diagnosed form of say coeliac disease or maybe peanut allergy etc, why is it that so many people claim to have such issues ? apart from them having an increased level of gullibility to advertising ?

Hey ho!

no surprise there then........

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/21/a-feast-of-engineering-whats-really-in-your-food

No surprise there then eh !

Another interesting article.........

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/15/truth-about-miracle-foods-chia-seeds-coconut-oil

What can you derive from that ?

IMO, not only are the "normal" food nazis trying to get us to eat shit, as long as there's a good mark up, but the health food nazis are just as bad.

Personally, I'd happily be the person behind the firing squad machine gun for any of these fuckers found to be lying....... You'd only need to do a couple and bingo, they'd stop all that shit...........

Another occasional post......

So what shit are the bastards gonna try and make us eat next ? Have a look to see, and you'll likely realise, you never know which one of the food nazis will try to get crap down your throat, just by changing the name or brand........ Their combined advertising budgets would likely cure most third world hunger........

Another sceptic ?

http://www.coachcalorie.com/food-advertising-tricks/

this is another good link if you're sceptical about the claims of some (? all) of the big food manufacturers.

Personally I just try and minimise the amount of dog shit ingredients I eat.

More mis-leading terminology.....

Ok, so I don't post new stuff here often enough.

Sorry, but its hard to find the time to post, let alone doing the research, etc.

Hence the occasional nature of updates. Not that it doesn't remain one of my "soap box" subjects, but in truth, "big food" continues to use confusing terms, descriptions and other literary and pictorial devices (IMO lies) to convince you to put your money in their wallet.

Now a relatively new (here in the UK anyway) are PDO's and PGI's (protected designator of origin and protected geographical indicators).

These terms emanate from the EU, in theory to protect "heritage" products from unfair competition. I seem to recall, the idea being based on the "AOC" accreditation used in France.

In truth, the French system is much more strict, than the criteria applied to PDO'S and PGI'S. They say where it can be made to use a given name, as well as, in most cases, the ingredients that can be used and where the ingredients must come from (I have a notion that there might be some "scope" for variation, with some products, but to my line its the best of a bad bunch).

Whereas, PDO'S must be made in the accredited area, though there seems nothing to say that the ingredients must be source there. PGI'S are even more "woolly".

I've just seen a tv programme that used the analogy of the "Cornish pasty" to highlight the rather strange way this kind of shit is worked out.

The presenter used a chap who works in a pub on the Devon/Cornwall border. He made one pasty on the cornish side of the border, with internationally source ingredients, and the same recipe, but with ingredients source entirely from Cornwall, on the Devon side of the border.

So which one can legally be called a "Cornish" pasty ? Well the one made on the cornish side of the border of course. What are you ? Stupid ?...... Seriously though, the tv programme people then conducted a rather unscientific taste test in the pasty makers pub, to find that all the people did select the pasty made in Devon with Cornish ingredients as their favourites.

Now this example just shows that while the PDO/PGI scheme was brought in with good intent, the compromises made to try and keep everyone happy are just that. Compromises, mainly to help business, which will still leave many consumers confused, yet paying more for that confusion, as these products will most likely, be sold at a premium rate.

The consumer gets poorer, while business gets richer. So no surprise there then eh!........

See, if you only ate the foods in this link, there's enough nutrients, fibre, etc etc for anyone to eat healthily.

Of course, you need to apply some thought, because some of them are bland as hell, some require considerable cooking methods (the kidney beans come to mind here), some are fine eaten alone, but all require moderation in the amounts.

You could easily just mix some as like a salad of some sort, but IMO, then such a meal should only be dressed with a little oil and vinegar dressing. Not bucket loads of mayo (which can be eaten in small quantities). Plus it depends on what the list of foods are cooked with, for example, the pearl barley, to my mind, is ideal for using in stews, particularly lamb. Even then, it's often about portion control.

The adage "you are, what you eat" isn't far wrong. If you're a fat bastard, then it's either the quantity of what you're eating, or the "quality" i.e. high sugar, high fat, high complex carbs, etc.

Pretty much anything can be eaten while staying healthy and retaining an appropriate weight/BMI, but if it's high in whatever might be the current target on the health nazi's hit list, then just eat a small quantity/portion and mix that with other stuff that is "good for you" (small amount of cream with that fresh fruit etc etc).

Rocket science eh!

Damn! it's a hell of a long time since I posted to this blog.......

Anyhow, I was just stumbling about when I found this.....

It's basically some of what my view still is, in regard to the "world food industry".

Yes, it's focused on the US, but it's still valid commentary......

I'm guessing but half of why we let "them" get away with it, is because we're lazy fuckers - and convenience is all!

It's certainly why the main food retailers here in the UK are so successful (success being relative to a point of view......)

It might be a while before I post again, as life isn't doing me any favours right now. I don't work in the food (dairy) industry any longer, so my POV has now changed to that of an outsider.

That still doesn't mean I don't care........

p.s. Oh and just for info, anyone who might find this blog, I've just had a quick check and the links still seem to be working...... so IMO, it's still worth a read if only to understand (if you give a toss) my point of view about food etc.....

I found this. Funny as fuck! Give it a look.

Pip pip!

I know that I don't post here often, mainly because I don't get time to read the papers or watch much television these days (if I could "drop" enough on the lottery to pay the mortgage, I'd probably be able to study full time and still read the papers/watch telly - sorry, a digression into fantasy land there).

The point of this post, is that I've just seen an advert for a "new" type of bread. Part of the "Kingsmill" range maybe??? I don't recall. What I do remember is that it's apparently white bread with "all the goodness of brown bread" so "the kids love it". Called "50/50" I think.

What a load of fucking rubbish. If you want bread with even basic nutritional value too feed to your kids, then you should probably be feeding them brown bread of some sort, probably a brown bread that's been produced by a "local" baker. Not some "pappy" white shit that's had any possible "goodness" processed out of it (apart from the carbohydrates of course) in one of the big manufacturers factories.

If you want to try a bit harder, then it would probably be a brown bread with various seeds as part of the mix i.e. often referred to as "multi-grain". The brown flour element of that bread being some sort of "wholemeal" flour.

Whats wrong with the product I alluded too above? Well why are they having to re-add the fibre element back into whats really the same pappy white steamed shit I mentioned earlier ? The advertising hook being "that the kids love it" ?

Food isn't something that nature really teaches us about - OK, not quite true. The basics of sweet, sour, salt and bitter are nature. The actual foods that we eat are "nurture" i.e. we learn to like them.

This then produces the paradox of how we learn what we like to eat ? It's my understanding that babies take the queue from their mothers facial expressions - with the taste i.e. the salt, sweet, sour and bitter bit from nature.

So what am I driving at ? To get the kids eating what you want them to eat i.e. to give them a balanced diet, as any sensibly minded parent would want, then you need to give them the balanced stuff, but with a nice smiley face (and maybe even the yum yum noises) whether you like it or not.

Then when they are onto the solids, they eat what they're given. Reserve the sweet, shitty, tooth rotting, fat making, sugary rubbish as a treat. Not because they won't eat anything else. If they're hungry enough, they'll eat it. They'll get used to it and eventually it will become a normal part of their diet.

Sure, it can be flavoured in many ways i.e. herbs, spices, etc etc, just not sugar or other "energy dense" products. Theres nothing wrong with introducing some of the alleged "bad" things later, though that balance is quite important of course.

Look at our European neighbours ? The nearest is France isn't it. Sure they have the reputation for cooking everything in butter (oh, bad, bad butter). The difference is, that it's also known to be quite well balanced - I also notice that it would appear that theres been a lot about the size of portions i.e. theirs tend to be between 25 and 30 % smaller. Which might have something to do with why they have less obesity and heart related problems than we do in the UK.

It seems to me, that we in the UK, suffer from a similar problem to "those", who are currently accused of causing the "terrorism" from the islamic world. That being, "they" would rather believe a muslim who is telling them lies, than a "westerner" who is telling them the truth about something. While we seem to rather believe fucking adverts and influences from the US, and any other shit put out by the "vested interests", than we would from a properly qualified and accredited nutritionist or other similar "food professional". The result, fat little cunt kids that bleed the ears of their parents about what they do and don't like, who are unfit, overweight and suffering from diabetes (no slur on "proper" diabetics - as that can occur as a natural (genetic???) health problem - my "best friend" from my school days is "type A" diabetic, his mother was diabetic - and consequently feed both him and his sister a good balanced diet - which still didn't stop his sister being diagnosed as insulin dependant in her mid teens either - hence my "genetic???" comment).

As for the parents? Proper food i.e. not processed dog shit, usually works out cheaper, though it may take a bit longer to prepare than the two minutes it takes to "do" a high sugar/salt/fat etc, processed "ready meal". And all you will have succeeded in doing is adding to another "coffin nail" into your childs' diet, and helped some middle/upper class, tory fat cat fucker, get richer through the shares that they own in the big boys/vested interests of the world of food manufacturing.

And no, I'm not any kind of food professional, but just an ordinary person who wants to take care of what I eat. I'm interested, so I try to read and understand as much as possible. I'm no angel, but about 95% of what I eat can be described as decent food. I still eat too much of it and could loose a stone or two, but I try to keep "shit" to a minimum!

It ain't rocket science, most of the information is "out there" and theres enough of it freely available, for you to give your kids a balanced, "shit free" diet instead of abusing them into type B diabetes, heart and other circulation related health problems, just so satisfy your own fucking laziness!

ttfn.

This (link removed - but it pointed to "the truth about food" by the BBC) is what I've been watching recently.

Quite informative. Some of it has turned out to be "common sense" (yeah ok, I know theres no such thing really because what might be "common sense" to me, might not be to you). Some of it has proved very interesting, inasfaras, they've disproved or proved quite a few "urban myth" type things.

Sugar "rush" in kids ? appears to be complete bollocks.

Detox diets ? Again, complete bollocks.

Aphrodisiacs ? Don't work, hence complete bollocks.

Now I haven't checked out the BBC site completely to see if theres a summary of either the complete series or individual programmes, but suffice to say, even though I don't post to this blog very often, it doesn't mean that I've lost interest. I haven't.

It's mainly because I don't have enough time to go through the unbelievably large amount of info that there is on the net and in other media sources. So much of what I'd like to say has already been posted/published elsewhere.

And yes, I do still believe that the so called "food manufacturers" are a bunch of money grabbing poisoning bastards, who will do just about anything to get us to eat the shit that they "produce" (more like excrete if you ask me), and charge us for the privilege.

Now I'm certainly not saying that we all need to become raging veggie nutters, or raw food obsessives. Just that you SHOULD read the label on any packet that you buy.

I'm also not saying that all the "e numbers" that is found on foods produced in the EU are toxins that must be avoided at all costs.

I'm saying that if you're not sure about something, at least look it up (on the net - if you're reading this you've got access to a computer) and see if you can track down what "it" is.

A good example is "Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil". What the fucks that? Well it's vegetable oil thats been treated with hydrogen so that it changes from the good old "runny stuff" to a solid material - not unsimilar looking to lard. Though it seems that thats not the only change it undergoes.

It would seem that somehow the amount of "trans fatty acids" in it increases (I think thats what they're called - it's too late at night for me to go checking my facts). These, apparently, are connected with cholesterol problems.

Theres another "e number" (no I can't remember the actual number), which might, to the completely paranoid, seem rather dicey. It's actually just concentrated lemon juice - made in such a way that it's more convenient to the manufacturing (food and other products) industry. So I'm guessing that it's probably not a problem.

The EU probably have a list somewhere, of all the various "e numbers" and what they actually are, and hopefully, what they do.

If you looked at, say, a tin of baked beans. To start, the actual can they come in. The canning process was developed originally so that foodstuffs could be kept longer (though the lead that was used to seal the tins originally, was toxic - and no, they don't use lead anymore). The beans, if they come from either of the "americas" probably have some sort of genetic modification. The tomatoe sauce ? Ha! just how much of it is actually tomatoe? how many other "flavour enhancers", " stabilisers" and "preservatives" are there in it ??

Exactly! In a product that most of the "western world" has been eating for decades. Much to the delight of various of the major food manufacturing conglomerates. A real "money spinner". Not to mention, a contributor to environmental problems as some of the growers (of the beans) hack down swathes of the amazon every year just to grow more of the beans (soya, haricot and others).

Right, I need a drink and then some sleep. So ttfn!

Watching as much "food TV" as I do, preparing "quality" meals isn't that hard. Plus, what with all the media interest about how people in the UK are catching up with the US, when it comes to being a bunch of fat bastards, it makes me wonder.

The other day, I had to accompany my parter, Clare, to the local branch of Tesco's, we got the stuff we were short of, and stood in the queue for the tills. While waiting, I glanced around and the people who were arranging payment for their shopping were both women (unsuprisingly). The thing that I did notice, was that they were both fucking huge. Real big fat fuckers!

Then I started watching the items that they were purchasing. I wasn't suprised that they were both such fat bastards, the amount of shit that the checkout person was scanning across the sensor had to be seen to be believed.

All prepackaged, fat/salt/sugar /additive laden rubbish. Even if they happened to have large families, there was enough calories to feed a small African nation!

Clare tried to justify their actions, with that "they probably don't have time" excuse. Well these days, that just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. They'd probably have "more time" if they got of their fat fucking arses and stopped filling their brains with shit from the TV.

Ok, it does take a bit more time to make a proper meal, that it does to open a packet of shit and microwave it.

But why to the food manufacturers use so much salt/sugar/fat/whatever ? because when you "process" food, it becomes bland and hideous looking pap! So they add salt/sugar/fat/additives, to make it "taste nice", and to look better, oh and so that it has a longer shelf life (yes, ok, lets be real about it, to make more fucking money).

Unfortunately, it's the consumer that doesn't seem to realise that this kind of "food" is slowly but surely killing them.

Of course, it's the likes of the food manufacturer that have realised, that while the quality of their product, might be shit, it tastes good - so they are falling back on that old trick of nature, that if somethings pleasing to the taste, it's probably safe too eat, if it tastes bad then it's probably not safe.

We Brits, are so obsessed with out petty minded xenophobia, that we haven't worked out why other European nations are so fussy about what they buy for food. To start with, it seems that their societies are a lot less fucked up than the UK. Less obsessed with time, or the lack of. So it's taking the bastards that make the shit that a large proportion of the UK eat, longer to squeeze the same levels of profit out of them.

And no, I rant about this kind of thing all the time, but I'm not perfect. Some of the shit does really taste good and as a result, occassionally I crack and have to have a quick "fix" of something. Often it will be chocolate, sometimes it will be that real processed dogshit, a pot noodle. The very spicy ones are fucking lovely, but whenever I'm about to crack - especially with the pot noodle, I look at the price, and I remember that at about a £ a shot, it's cheaper to go to the little Chinese store in town, and buy their instant noodles instead. More varied flavours and about half the price. If I then still want the noodles tasting more hot/spicey I can always put some fresh chilli in.

So come on, you fat bastards, take the time to make "proper" meals, and leave the instant processed dogshit where it belongs, either on the supermarket shelves or in the rubbish bin.

Oh!, the older I get, the harder it is, to get off my soap box !

Bugger, caught out again! No, nothing that I've seen in the media recently has grabbed my attention enough to reproduce/comment on it here, but I've taken to watching a programme on the UKTVFOOD satelite channel, called "food uncut".

Food Uncut is quite an interesting concept, it's only half an hour long, but tries to cover a wide variety of subjects. Yesterday, they had an article about food blogs.

The annoying thing was, that they only seemed to focus on apparently well known food blogs. Well they might be well known to some people but not too me. Maybe thats my fault though, as I don't really get the time too sit at the computer and search for food blogs. Or food articles per se (hell, I'm writing this during the Sweden Vs England match at half time).

Ha! I mean, even the latest edition of the aforementioned programme is recorded on my "Sky" PVR device. It can take a day or two for me to see the recorded material.

The article on food blogs was a little like the programme. It's aimed at a curious demographic. I'm sometimes confused who it's directed toward, but it appears to be mainly a "middle class" thing - even though the take up of digital TV has a higher level amongst the "working classes" (apparently).

The programmes mainly static "anchor" presenters, seem to have a good understanding of their subject. Though I sometimes wonder what actually qualifies them to talk about the subject - except for the reasonably regular "guest" chef - Jean Cristophe Novelli (apologies if I spelled the name wrong) who is a reasonably well known (and michelin starred, I understand) TV chef.

The other two ? Stephan something or other, well I first saw him on the Channel 4 programme called "full on Food" (I think). Actually, thats where I saw Merrilees, who seemed to take over from Stephan there. They then turned up on food uncut.

I suspect that she is also an experienced chef, but I don't know as so far I haven't looked to see if she has her own website/biog'/whatever.

Perhaps it's just me being lazy. Or perhaps, because I'm not fazed by people with some sort of show biz' notoriety, that I don't give a fuck, but I suppose I'll have to look!

Apart from that, the programme is quite good, and reasonably informative - though some of the recipes are a little highbrow. Some ideas of what might make "normal" food a little more interesting would be good.

Not all of us have these "top" restraunts/delli's/fishmongers/etc etc just round the corner like the more affluent parts of London seem to have. So some of the ingredients are a bit hard to find.

Maybe it's just that I've missed the point of the programme. Hey! I'm not perfect. I just don't like the idea that we have to eat so much shit i.e. what the supermarkets would prefer to feed us because it looks pretty and comes in an appealing box (and the accompanying price tag).

I will also try to keep this updated more often though!

Pip Pip!

Haven't posted for a while, but was prompted too, because yesterday I looked in our food cupboard and found myself facing a tin of "Heinz Spaghetti Hoops" (spaghetti rings, I think, in the US).

It was the writing on the top of the label that made me think some. It said "check out my salt levels".

OK, fine. It has good salt levels. Maybe, I can't honestly say that I know exactly what the correct amount of salt (on a daily intake basis) is.

So I started looking around. Now the conclusion that I came to, is something I've sort of been aware of for ages anyway, but it seemed to be confirmed.

Most foods, particularly processed ones, have easily identifiable amounts of salt, sugar and fat, in varying combinations. OK, but as soon as "they" try to change something about that food, then "they" often have to up to quantity of one or both of the others to compensate.

Fats and salt aren't really that palatable on their own - Ok sugar is nice but you often find that it's bloody awful to eat on it's own. They are mainly used as flavour enhancers.

The problem seems to be that if you eat too many foods with too much of one of those three things in them, then theres possible health complications i.e. too much sugar is obvious, you end up as a fat fucker with bad teeth. Too much salt and you end up with arteries made of steel and rocketing blood pressure. Too much fat and you end up as a fat fucker but with clogged arteries.

Is there an answer ? Well I suppose the answer is "sort of".

Sort of what ? Well, sort of, eat a balanced diet, and maybe learn enough so that you've got some idea of how many calories a portion of X contains - yes, you will need to have some idea of just how much a portion is i.e. weight and/or size.

That way, you can enjoy something that is say, high fat but you only eat a very small amount. The same applies to fat and salt.

Part of the reason that people in the US have a reputation for being fat bastards, is that not only are they eating the wrong foods, but too fucking much of them as well. They seem to have embraced "convenience" like nowhere else. Of course, the UK is doing it's best too catch up, but fortunately such evidence from the US is going some way to providing us with a clue as to the results of poor diet.

Most food, when it's in it's natural state, already contains enough sugar/salt/fat's. They're present naturally. It's just that they're not as salty/sweet/savoury/whatever. So maybe, cook your veggies without any additional salt. Then taste them, and add just a little too taste. Fruit? well again, taste the fucking thing. If it's not sweet enough for you, just add a little extra sweetner (artificial or natural). Fats a difficult. It can often be hard to decide if something has got enough (breads easy enough, only put enough butter on it so that it's spread very thinly, if you must). Other things? well, if you follow recipes then stick to them. Then at least you can try to judge how much of something you eat is likely to contain.

Perhaps I'm lucky inasfaras my partner Clare and myself, eat a very balanced diet. She's very conscientious, whereas I tend to eat too much by way of quantity (the quality is there).

I don't want to stop you eating what you like, I just want to encourage you to think about which foods, and how much, you're actually putting in your mouth. And no, I don't accept any shit excuses, like, "but the kids won't eat anything else" etc etc. If you're the parents, then the fucking kid(s) eat whats put in front of them - don't give them the choice of pick and choose. They're kids afterall, they're learning to be adults. If you don't "train" them properly, then how are they going to know whats good and what crap. The food manufacturers certainly won't tell 'em. They just want to produce food that costs as little as possible to make, but commands the highest prices to buy. They're not in it for your benefit (unless you happen to own shares in that company), they're in it too make a profit.

All I really have to do to improve my health is to stop smoking and try to get in the habit of taking more exercise.

Ah yes. That magic word, exercise. Perhaps it's the one thing that people are not doing enough of, and no, you don't have to throw hundreds of pounds/dollars/euro at some posh gym membership - they aren't really very nice places to try to improve (unless you're some sort of image obsessed moron who needs to have others to compare yourself too). Normally, the only thing that gets lighter with smart gym memberships is your fucking wallet! The robbing bastards.

Jog, cycle, swim, walk, something. Theres enough advice from the medical world to guide you in an appropriate way to exercise more.

Oh well, I suppose that I'd better go and get on with my cycle ride!

pip pip!

Well, having seen just how much Jamie Olivers apparent influence has had i.e. it seems to have given the government the kick up the arse that they apparently needed.

But, one or two of the comments he made during the programme or during the current coverage he's generated have "struck a chord".

Ok, so it was the fucking tories (as I understand it) that removed the mandatory nutrional requirements, and then with their waves of public spending cuts, put the school meals services out to commercial tender. Enabling their friends who own the successful commercial entities to take over school kitchens. Which were then turned into "cook/chill dogshit factories".

Sure there'll always be political stuff about public spending, but when are these fucking government idiots gonna realise that there's somethings that just can't be put onto commercial footings, and will always be "loss leaders"? Schools, social services, public health, prisons, etc to name but a few! Sure, that shouldn't stop the controlling authorities keeping a hand on the purse strings and yes, I'm quite happy to concede that it's not as easy as it sounds but, nothing really is, is it?

So, with that in mind, lets take the example of those aforementioned "cook/chill dogshit factories". The comment that struck a chord, was "behaviour improved", over the time that the Oliver stuff was going on in the school in Greenwich that his programme was filmed in.

What does that tell you? Maybe that something in (or not, as the case may be) the food is affecting the young peoples behaviour?

Whats the difference between the fresh fruit and vegetables, and the fast food that was originally served?

Fat, Salt, Sugar, Fibre ? or was it something more insidious ? Like shit loads of "E numbers" ?

All that the "E number" means is that it's been tested, and found safe for consumption in Europe. So, what does "safe" really mean? is it that it won't cause short term health concerns i.e. illness/disease etc? or is it that these chemicals (often stuff that's only included to make stuff last longer, or in otherwords reduce the cost and increase the profit margins of the manufacturer, right the way down to the retailer) have been thoroughly checked to make sure that they don't actually affect the very levels of natural bodily chemicals that affect things like behaviour ?

Or maybe these additive type things aren't actually covered by the "e numbering system"? but by other regs. Like chicken for example. "They" are allowed to put a certain amount of water in "fresh" chicken. Why? other than to make it weigh more so that "they" make a bigger profit! If the flour producers put fucking chalk into flour to make it go further, they'd be hung out to dry by the fucking courts! (much like they were in historical terms). So why are the fucking meat bastards allowed to effectively do the same thing? Or the bacon manufacturers for that matter?

Sure, those are just two of the more well known examples. But there appear to be many many more, like the recent "Sudan 1" scandal. Because when you industrialise food processing, it changes, not necessary for the worse, but it changes. The marketing scum then try and sell it to you, with nice shiney photographs, adverts and other dubious claims of how wonderful it is, and they are!

Bollocks. Fucking liars, the lot of 'em.

The obvious thing to do, is to take ALL school kitchens back out of the control of commercial "enterprise", put them back into "state" control. Provide MANDATORY nutritional standards, not only for fat, salt and sugar, but for fibre and vitamins, oh and then take any fucking vending machines out of schools and crush these fucking hazards with a large bulldozer!

Then, ban all producers, wholesalers, retailers from selling any "doctored" shit. A few judicial punishments for exploiting us with crap etc etc.

But it ain't gonna happen is it! God forbid, that the government upset's "business"! Even though it's in their power too. Because that'd cause to much of an inconvenience. Short term tax revenue losses, profits, etc etc etc. Increased cost's in the shorter term while these businesses have to change their practices and so on!

In other words, basic public health can go and fuck itself if it's gonna cause any "rocking of the financial boat"!

Oh, and no, parents don't get off lightly either! If you want kids, then be prepared to make the sacrifices. Get of your fat, fucking couch potatoe arses, turn the fucking telly off, and spend just a little more time and effort to produce normal, basic food for your offspring. Don't just follow the rat run, that is todays supermarket isles for the easiest things to shove down your kids throats, think about it a little, it's not hard!

So it's taken a TV chef, Jamie Oliver, to highlight the poor standards of "food" being fed to the nations kids for "school dinners".
Well done, Jamie Oliver.

If you then think what the possible answer is to this? Well, I like to think that I have a "middling" view of most things (albeit with emotional outbursts), and the only answer, well 2 really, are for the government to set minimum nutritional standards, and get rid of profit making companies from "school dining halls".

Trouble with that, is that those who'd make such decisions, can afford to send their kids to schools who are almost capable of providing a fucking 3 star (Michelin) menu for their school dinners! (and that's not to be critical of the Michelin Guide, because it does point us toward some absolutely outstanding restraunts).

Officialdom seems obsessed with offering choice. Well, from an alledgely "common sense" view, that's exactly what kids DON'T NEED! They need education. Which, if necessary, needs to include learning about healthy eating, not where the nearest Mickey D's is, so they can get their daily portion of crispy crunchy chicken factory floor sweepings (what part of the body supplies it's "nuggets" anyway?). Liberally coated with carcinogenic chemical sauce? Yum Yum, just what growing kids need in their daily diet!

Local Authorities don't need to make a profit. So where there's commercial provision in school dining halls, fuck em off, then whatever proportion of the daily dinner money charge that goes straight to their banks and shareholders, could just as easily be put toward the cost of the ingredients - It's not fucking rocket science is it!

The same applies to parents. Don't just go round the supermarket for more packets of the latest convenience processed dog shit, and no you don't have to be fucking "cordon bleu" cooks either. It doesn't take that much longer to make basic, nutritionally sound meals - Oh yes, I forget, god forbid that you miss that latest episode of Corrie or Xtenders. Life wouldn't be worth living, would it - you bunch of TV addicted fucking tubs of lard!

Also, given the current public conversation thats going on, in respect of "The Obesity Epidemic", especially amongst the nations children,

My personal message is this:

Read the Fucking label. Don't feed your kids so much Shit! Then maybe, just maybe the kid won't end up as a "Fat Cunt"! at school. If it's got rubbishy ingredients in it, don't buy it. If you don't feed it to the fucking kids in the first place, they probably wouldn't get a taste for it! Don't sit in front of your television set like a fucking bloated lazy whale, put a bit of effort into preparing fresh food that's not full of shit! Spend a little on recipe books, and if the recipe you happen to choose is one that might raise eyebrows because of the amount of fat/salt/sugar, then don't not have it, but have it as an occasional treat.

If your kid is already a "Fat Bastard", because you're a fucking moron, then sell the car and make the fat bastard walk to school, if you happen to be one of these parents who to be paranoid, "oh god, there's a child molester on every street corner", then walk with the kids, it'll probably do you some good as well. And if you happen to live too far from the school, then either move school or move fucking house!

And finally, "WAKE UP". The food manufacturers aren't making the convience products for your benefit, it's because like all businesses, they want to make you part with your money - and if they can take cheap ingredients and "Add Value", they're not adding the value for you, the customer, they're adding the value so they can charge you more for it! (and pay the company directors fucking huge bonuses).

"This" © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 is an article that particularly amused me.

It amused me, but didn't suprise me. Let's face it, with anything that can be described as unhealthy, the vested interests go out of their way to smear anything that is critical of their particular industry.

As with this report, and "Big Sugars'" attempts to diguise their alledged interference, it seems to be the same as with the tobacco industry. "Big Tobacco" seems to have gone to quite some extremes, to hide the evidence of ill health in connection with the consumption of tobacco. It doesn't matter whether it's snuff, chewing tobacco or cigar/cigarette/pipe tobacco. It would appear that "they" knew of the health risks many many years before the various government establishments "cottoned on" to the health hazards.

And even now, they seem to spend millions sponsoring research that says, tobacco isn't as bad as you think!

Ha, Bollocks!

As one of those who is "time poor", you'll note that my entries are a little erratic. But when I'm working, I do try and pay special attention to matters that specifically regard food.

Last night, while heading into London, I caught an excellent programme on the radio. There's not much point in linking the audio stream, as I believe that the BBC replace the audio feed's, when the next programme has been broadcast. The "analysis" programme is a general "looking into things" type programme, but the following link is to the transcript of the broadcast. You will find it "here" © B.B.C. 2004. If you read through it, you'll see it's main focus seems to be on "Looking after yourself" and makes lot's of valid points/comments in respect of the latest "obesity" problem.

It left me thinking that the various governments of the world have no choice but to legislate against the very people who manufacture your food. Labeling, salt, fat, sugar - those three "magical" ingredients, so beloved by the food industry.

This would need to be done, inasfaras what they add as "extra". for example, when cheese is manufactured/made, it already has quite a high fat content - so this would be just a labeling thing. But with so many other manufactured food products, the additional salt, sugar and fat content, should be banned.

If you are lucky enough to have the time to cook "proper" meals, then that's where you have choice, but in these times of processed ready meal's, they, the manufacturers have taken away your choice. Traditional recipies have been developed in kitchen's and it's your choice to decide if you want to try and modify a flavour by limiting an ingredient. Processed food, is produced from recipes taken from traditional sources and then fucked about with in a laboratory - so "they" can make them taste how "they" want, and make it so you can have it with a relatively long shelf life.

All in the name of profit - nothing against making a profit per se, but these fuckers aren't just making money, they're messing with the very health of society, that the public SHOULD be allowed to take for granted.

I'm sure that you can see that this is a long and complicated matter. One that I will get to again.

"This" © The Observer 2003 is what I found recently about the "obesity problem". It certainly makes for interesting reading.

It sort of brings into context my earlier post about energy density of food, but it also brings into focus the limited campaign to ban advertising "AT" children. Like in parts of Scandanavia. Something that I'm in full agreement for.

It might actually reduce that modern phenomena of "Pester Power", in a world where rightly or wrongly, parents have lost the ability to use the word "No".