Food is bad for you.

Not to worry, the State (or rather, the Superstate run by a faceless band of people who have deluded themselves into believing that they know what they are doing) will save you.

Well, not save you, so much. More… tax you. That is all they really know how to do.

The food tax will result in a massive administrative problem requiring whole departments staffed with idiots who think they know best. It will probably cost so much that the tax will have to be extended to carrots, lentils and tofu. In a sensible world, this would mean the whole idea would be dropped as unworkable and filed in the darkest drawer of the ‘this is stupid’ filing cabinet.

We live in the EU which cannot, not even by the most talented spin doctor, be considered in any way ‘sensible’. To that mob, an idea that rakes in more money and results in employing more useless beurocrats to adminster, at great expense, a measure that makes no difference, is exactly what they are looking for.

I’m sure I read that there have already been calls for plain packs for those foods deemed ‘unhealthy’. Pictures of Bernard Manning in a thong (he’d have needed to use pliers to take it off) will adorn the ones aimed at men, while pictures of Bella Emberg spattered with vomit and diarrhoea will cover those aimed at women. They are both dead, and the establishment regards the dead as fair game these days.

For products aimed at children, Jamie Oliver’s face would do it. With a speech bubble saying ‘I recommend this’. In fact for anything aimed at anyone…

Food is now equated with booze (which has calories so counts as food) and tobacco (which does not, well, unless it’s tobacco wine or a tobacco salad). Which reminds me, I still have to get to Smoky-Drinky early enough to pass round that bottle of tobacco wine. They are mostly incoherent by the time I arrive these days, especially since I don’t finish until 9 pm. That small bottle will be my celebration of freedom from this job. It’s still here.

It will start with the so-called unhealthy foods, all of which are only unhealthy if you eat them all the time, and to excess at that. You can live on burgers and not get fat. If you feel your belt shrinking, reduce the number of burgers per day until it fits your waist again. It will not end with those foods. Once the wall that stops the taxing of essentials has been breached there is no turning back.

Is it possible to convince people that food is bad for them? Take a look at this first line from a Mail article –

Nature can appear cruel and heartless but unlike man animals eat out of necessity rather than greed.

Yes, we humans only eat through greed. It is not necessary. There are three choices of lunacy here – the article was written by a) a Breatharian, b) an escapee from a secure mental hospital or c) the Mail editor’s pet flying monkeys, sometimes abbreviated to ‘reporters’.

The commenters aren’t falling for it but you can be sure there are many drones out there who will.

I rarely eat at a burger bar. The stuff is awful. I prefer a decent burger. Still there are times when I get hungry in an airport or railway station and it’s all that’s available. It’s tolerable and I have eaten worse in the past. Also, I admit I do like those ultra-thin chips. I don’t care how they are made, they taste nice and they have never made me ill. Good enough.

Yet, even though I personally regard such places as a last resort, I would never advocate banning them. I just don’t use them. They are not frogmarching me inside, emptying my wallet (wouldn’t take long) and then force-feeding me. They are not doing that to anyone. Just like the places dedicated to bad-coffee connosieurs and tofu addicts, you go there or don’t go there. Your choice.

There is an obsession now with controlling everyone else. The drones are all at it. It’s hard to understand. I don’t want to be fat and am not fat. If someone else is happy with a waistline that puts them ahead of Pluto in planet status, that is not my concern. If another person wants to live with their after-death remains showiing through their pallid skin, that is also not my concern. I have enough to do living my life. Yours is your business.

It’s a simple outlook on life really, but it is too complex for any politician to understand.

I think that says more about politicians than they could ever say about themselves.



By the way, Mopman got the job he was after. Good thing I resigned or I’d be working all day, every day. His start date for his new job is pretty much the same as my end date for mine. Area Manager will be furious. I will try to keep a straight face but I’m not succeeding so far.

If I’m honest, I’m not trying all that hard.


31 thoughts on “Food is bad for you.

  1. You are not wrong about food. But I really can’t be bother to go into it. Although not eating is not necessarily a bad idea. Eating food will probably kill you sooner than starvation.

    Try not to be too be pissed off about the job. We all know that you are a bit miffed. Probably because no one really appreciated what you were doing, or how reliable you were.
    Such is life. All good people know this.
    Not bleeding fair. But thar you go.


    • Wot! Eating food will kill you quicker than starvation.

      I’ll take a bet here. You don’t eat food and I’ll continue eating and we will see who gets taken to hospital first. I’m just eating a bacon sandwich now so I’ll get a head start to give you an advantage.

      Tell your next of kin to let me know when you are finished your not eating project.


      • Bur if one of you is taken to hospital, that would negate your experiment by introducing a massive confounding factor. Hospitals kill more people than any of the things they tell us will kill us!


  2. Of course it might help if nutritionists actually provided any real advice. A diet containing fat is good and also has been for years and years. A diet to lose weight used to be cutting down on carbs and starchy food. That was rubbished at the same time that obesity started to be a problem. A coincidence?

    It’s way past time that government and their rent seeking hangers on got out of our lives. We should be doing what we want within reason. We pay highly for the privilege of living our lives and then get a hard time of it if we need to use ant of the services we’ve paid to use!


    • The currently changing attitude towards saturated fat (see Sweden’s recent polar shift on this) is the only thing that gives me hope at the moment.

      If the BMA et-al can admit they are wrong about that drum which they’ve been banging on for decades, even the drones might start to question the other garbage they spew.

      And if they don’t admit it, they will look pretty fucking stupid in a few years when the Swedes start to get even more healthy as we disappear under a tsunami of carb fed bloaters…


      • Don’t get too hopeful. Second hand smoke has been comprehensively debunked but the drones still fall for the third hand smoke scam.

        Some people only exist to have their minds played with. It’s what they are for.


  3. There is an obsession now with controlling everyone else. The drones are all at it. It’s hard to understand

    Not if you know how it started.

    The Lalonde Doctrine.

    “Lalonde and his department, worried about the potential for unsustainable increases in the cost of health care, believed that one answer was to focus more resources not on the healing of diseases but on their prevention. And the key to prevention, according to the dominant voices in the health community, was changing lifestyles.

    The lifestyle recipe was straightforward: Canadians needed to eat less, particularly of certain things, drink little if at all, smoke nothing and exercise much more.

    But if the prescription was straightforward the means for getting the patient to accept it were more complicated.

    Even in the 70’s the evidence about the connection between lifestyles and the multifactoral diseases like cancer and heart disease was debatable.

    The public was constantly being bombarded with conflicting scientific information, whether about cholesterol, fat, coffee, salt or any number of other alleged lifestyle culprits in ill-health.
    Last year’s latest scientific truth about lifestyle and disease was quickly overtaken by the newest and often contradictory medical pronouncements.

    Then too, Lalonde recognized that there was a strong streak of individualism in Canadians with respect to their health. “It is not easy to get someone not in pain to moderate insidious habits in the interests of future well-being”, he noted. “The view that Canadians have the right ‘to choose their own poison’is one that is strongly held.”

    Lalonde realized that if lifestyle medicine and with it prevention were to succeed, two things had to happen. First, Canadians had to move from their view about their right to live their lives as they pleased to one in which they acknowledged a moral obligation to accept their society’s norm of healthy behaviour, even if this meant abandoning some of life’s pleasures.

    Second, the health establishment had to speak with one, clear, authoritative voice, preferably if not a government voice at least a government-sanctioned voice about the dangers of certain lifestyles.

    This meant that lifestyle change had to be vigourously promoted even if the science supporting such changes was incomplete, ambigious and divided.

    Taking his text from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle”

    Lalonde argued the careful scientific approach was unfitted to the task of health promotion. “The spirit of enquiry and skepticism, and particularly the Scientific Method… are … a problem in health promotion. The reason for this is that science is full of ‘ifs’ , ‘buts’, and maybes’ while messages designed to influence the public must be loud, clear and unequivocal.”
    http: //

    Edited highlights.

    A new perspective on the health of Canadians – Marc Lalonde 1974

    “At the same time as improvements have been made in health care, in the general standard of living, in public health protection and in medical science, ominous counter-forces have been at work to undo progress in raising the health status of Canadians.

    These counter-forces constitute the dark side of economic progress. They include environmental pollution, city living, habits of indolence, the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, and eating patterns which put the pleasing of the senses above the needs of the human body.”

    “The behaviour of many people also reflects their individual belief that statistical probability, when it is bad, applies only to others.
    This belief is the comfort of soldiers at war, criminals and racing drivers, none of whom could
    sustain their activities did they not look on the sunny side of risk and probability.
    It is also the solace of those whose living habits increase the likelihood of sickness, accidents and early death.”

    “Even such a simple question as whether one should severely limit his consumption of butter and eggs can be a subject of endless scientific debate.
    Faced with conflicting scientific opinions of this kind, it would be easy for health educators and promoters to sit on their hands; it certainly makes it easy for those who abuse their health to find a ready “scientific” excuse.

    But many of Canada’s health problems are sufficiently pressing that action has to be taken on them even if all the scientific evidence is not in.”

    As taken up by the WHO

    Support to regions and countries in health promotion, strengthening national and community capacity

    “Since the Lalonde Report – A new Perspective on the Health of Canadians (1974) major strides have been made in developing health promotion internationally. It broadened the understanding of factors that contribute to good health, introduced the concept of health promotion and led to a number of governmental policies focused on lifestyle-seat belt legislation, exercise, nutrition and smoking cessation.

    The Ottawa Conference and Charter (1986) drew inspiration from the Lalonde report and from the Alma-Ata Declaration (1978).”
    http: //

    So you can terrorise the populace into compliance with all manner of unprovable theories as long as you speak with one voice.

    Post Normal Science in other words.

    Obviously real science is still essential in the manufacture of washing machines or they wouldn’t work and the result would be noticed in a very short time, but humans live for decades and all die in the end anyway so if you give them poor advice you’ll be long retired before it catches up with you.

    Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus – 2007

    “In 1988, the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, proclaimed ice cream to a be public-health menace right up there with cigarettes. Alluding to his office’s famous 1964 report on the perils of smoking, Dr. Koop announced that the American diet was a problem of “comparable” magnitude, chiefly because of the high-fat foods that were causing coronary heart disease and other deadly ailments.

    He introduced his report with these words: “The depth of the science base underlying its findings is even more impressive than that for tobacco and health in 1964.”

    “It may seem bizarre that a surgeon general could go so wrong. After all, wasn’t it his job to express the scientific consensus? But that was the problem. Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.”

    “Cascades are especially common in medicine as doctors take their cues from others, leading them to overdiagnose some faddish ailments (called bandwagon diseases) and overprescribe certain treatments (like the tonsillectomies once popular for children). Unable to keep up with the volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert — or at least someone who sounds confident.

    In the case of fatty foods, that confident voice belonged to Ancel Keys, a prominent diet researcher a half-century ago (the K-rations in World War II were said to be named after him). He became convinced in the 1950s that Americans were suffering from a new epidemic of heart disease because they were eating more fat than their ancestors.”

    A particularly interesting part of that article is as soon as the fat heart disease theory was accepted by powerful organisations, all dissenting voices were silenced.


      • Yes it was.

        Smoking and the sea change in public health, 1945-2007
        Virginia Berridge

        “Today’s alliance between doctors and the government to influence individual lifestyles is a relatively recent phenomenon.
        First, it required the medical profession to abandon its culture of secrecy, based on patient confidentiality: this began with the use of television in the late 1950s.

        Second, it required the introduction into public policy of studies linking lifestyles and health risks: this began with a change in leadership at the Royal College of Physicians in the early 1960s.

        Third, it required a shift in the nature of public health from local information giving to central publicity campaigning: this began with the Cohen Report on health education in 1964, advocating a rethinking of the profession of health educators as persuaders, even salesmen.”

        Well worth a read.


  4. The cholesterol in eggs scare was apparently started by President Lyndon B Johnson to bring down the demand for eggs.

    “In 1966, the price of eggs rose to a level that President Lyndon Johnson judged, God knows how, was too high. There were two culprits — supply and demand — and Johnson’s agriculture secretary told him there was not much that could be done. LBJ, however, was a can-do fellow who directed the U.S. surgeon general to dampen demand by warning the nation about the hazards of cholesterol in eggs.”

    Which became medical belief and was with us until 2009

    You can now go to work on an egg every day, scientists say

    “Eggs have an “insignificant” affect on people’s cholesterol, according to scientists, who are now recommending that most people can eat as many eggs as they want.”

    “Many authorities are still recommending that consumers should not eat more than about three eggs a week – out of date advice that failed to reflect the evidence, the scientists said.

    Only last year the advertising watchdog banned an attempt to re-run the classic advert from 1957: Go to Work on an Egg.”

    But in that article from 2009 they were still pushing Ancel Key’s saturated fat theory.


    • I’ve stuck with eggs, real butter and eating whatever I fancy all through these scares.

      I’m the only one my age that I know of who isn’t on any kind of medication. My medicine cabinet has aspirin in it – and that’s probably out of date.


      • Isn’t it interesting that those of us through the meddle of our hearts have stuck over the years, with doing as we please, eating what we please, smoking the same, and imbibing all the alcohol our livers will stand, are still even here to comment on this smuck……?


      • I’ve stuck with eggs, real butter and eating whatever I fancy all through these scares

        So have I, but we had the benefits of a 50’s upbringing and already knew what was good and what was dubious before the social engineers confused everyone else.
        I’m not on any medication either, I do carry Ibuprofen in my handbag though in case I’m struck by a migraine, which is mercifully rare.


        • I find that hydrocodone with ibuprophen makes those alleviate within minutes. You just have to find a doctor to proscribe it and a pharmacist who can make it here in the States. It took me two years, but persuasion and perseverance pay off, another thing our generation is noted for. I enjoy your research comments!!!


  5. There’s a lot of guilt about food these days. Odd when you think that in previous times, the ordinary working people often didn’t have enough to eat. Is that what we are suffering from? A collective guilt?

    I had a homemade beef burger the other day and it was divine. Truly scrumptious.

    Congratulations to Mopman! Bet he’s relieved. Bet you’re pleased for him too. Wonder how Area Manager will handle it? Perhaps she’ll have an apopletic fit at the news?

    *titters loudly*


    • Homemade beef burger sounds great. There is a place nearby, somehwere between a cafe and a full-on restaurant, that makes their own burgers from Aberdeen Angus beef. They would make a McDonald’s fan cry (not least at the price!). I’ve tried one and one day, when I have the money again, I’ll try another.

      They have tables outside for smokers too.

      Mopman has induction courses next week. Don’t know why, he already knows how the store job works, but that’s ‘procedure’. He is full of angst that he might be taking advantage of me by asking me to cover shifts but it’s my last week so I don’t care. A bit extra in the final pay packet would not go amiss.


  6. All public health successes are public health diseasters.

    Every one dies; if you decrease the deaths from one disease, there must be an increase in deaths from other diseases.

    Something to do with ‘unforeseen consequences’.

    Same thing with doing away with ‘pre-mature’ deaths.

    Half of all deaths will always be ‘pre-mature’, below the average of death.


    • That’s what keeps them going. There will always be plenty of ‘avoidable premature deaths’ they can claim are caused by their pet hate of the day. And our elected representatives will keep on giving them money because they are stupid.


  7. Good on Mopman, send him my best, if you see him again before “The end!”

    I could have great fun in such a shop on my last shift.

    Such as going around the shelves puttin “Halal” stickers on all the pork products.

    WOULD I do that??? Nooooo. 😀


  8. Here is one about food.

    I was just at a neighbours house for a couple of beers and a smoke of something not including tobbacco. He has something called a “Television.”

    He was watching this thing called “Frauentausch” where a wife from one family goes to live with another, whilst the wife from the other goes to the family of the first wife for ten days.

    This one ended up on a farm.

    “O.K, we have to dig the potatoes,” sais the farmer.


    “You know, potatoes, they grow in the ground.”

    “ähhhh…. oh….do they?”

    “Right now we have to pick the rhubarb(sp?)”

    “What’s that then?”

    “Rhubarb, you know? You make jam with it, you cook it in sugar and throw a dollop of custard over it?”

    “Nope, never heard of it!”

    “O.K, we need dandilion leaves for the soup.”

    “OH!!! BUT???? They are POISONOUS!!!”

    Fucking stupid cow. But I think you may find the majority of people are like that nowdays.


    • Of course, me, I would have played along; “Of COURSE they are poisonous. HIGHLY poisonous, but me, being a shaman, can eat them safely, because I use magic to get rid of the ill effects…..” 😀


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s