![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsYesterday, the Executive of Scotland (that's apparently his title) released a "damning" paper which showed that despite spending over a £100 million over the past decade exhorting its citizens to eat well, the diet of Scotland is worse than ever. Scotland has a socialized medical system, meaning that the state pays for the health-related consequences of a poor diet. Put these two together, and the conclusion was, well, chilling: "So pervasive is poor diet that reliance on individual choice as the prime ideology in shaping food supply is no longer an adequate public policy."
Reading through the comments, I'm reminded of Theo Dalrymple's observation that in London, while the pols complained of there being no supermarkets anywhere in his neighborhood and were prepared to label it a "food desert", he knew of two that consistently had excellent fresh vegetables all the time, and were often full of women making choices for their families' dinners. They weren't labeled as "supermarkets" because they had been zoned as "ethnic food outlets," and the bulk of their customers were Indian or Muslim. Most of the respondents don't know how to cook and haven't cared enough to go find a decent butcher or grocers.
The other "key quote" from the press conference that boggled my mind was this: "It's all well and good to say you should eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but then you have to look at how easy it is for people to access the shops to do that, and how affordable those products are."
Compared to what? Calorie for calorie, a whole grapefruit might be more expensive than a burger, but in terms of portion control the latter is probably enough to cover two servings of fruit.
I know, I go on about this issue but, really, it's a chilling outcome. The only question now is which will be the first for the state to take complete control: the kitchen or the nursery. I think it's a toss-up at this point. I'm reminded of this great article from 2020.
FallenPegasus presented this scenario: first the state declares that there must be public cafeterias serving free but nutritive foods, and people will flock there because people are cheap. Eventually, "affordable housing" will grow up around the public cafeterias that don't even have kitchens: after all, there's the public cafeteria. Eventually, building any house with a kitchen will require "speciality" permits because of their relative rarity and the fire hazard they obviously pose. Insurers will be able to point to houses with kitchens and the rates of fires and jack up rates: the only people who can cook for themselves are those who can afford the food twice: once for the taxes to support the public cafeterias, and once for themselves. Because people are no longer "forced" to buy food at the grocers that profession will wither away, and food bought outside the public cafe system will be that much more expensive. People who object to the whole system will find themselves on the receiving end of a shrieking barrage of abuse about how they support "starvation" and "malnutrition."
I have seen your future dinners, and they are full of mystery meat.
Reading through the comments, I'm reminded of Theo Dalrymple's observation that in London, while the pols complained of there being no supermarkets anywhere in his neighborhood and were prepared to label it a "food desert", he knew of two that consistently had excellent fresh vegetables all the time, and were often full of women making choices for their families' dinners. They weren't labeled as "supermarkets" because they had been zoned as "ethnic food outlets," and the bulk of their customers were Indian or Muslim. Most of the respondents don't know how to cook and haven't cared enough to go find a decent butcher or grocers.
The other "key quote" from the press conference that boggled my mind was this: "It's all well and good to say you should eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but then you have to look at how easy it is for people to access the shops to do that, and how affordable those products are."
Compared to what? Calorie for calorie, a whole grapefruit might be more expensive than a burger, but in terms of portion control the latter is probably enough to cover two servings of fruit.
I know, I go on about this issue but, really, it's a chilling outcome. The only question now is which will be the first for the state to take complete control: the kitchen or the nursery. I think it's a toss-up at this point. I'm reminded of this great article from 2020.
FallenPegasus presented this scenario: first the state declares that there must be public cafeterias serving free but nutritive foods, and people will flock there because people are cheap. Eventually, "affordable housing" will grow up around the public cafeterias that don't even have kitchens: after all, there's the public cafeteria. Eventually, building any house with a kitchen will require "speciality" permits because of their relative rarity and the fire hazard they obviously pose. Insurers will be able to point to houses with kitchens and the rates of fires and jack up rates: the only people who can cook for themselves are those who can afford the food twice: once for the taxes to support the public cafeterias, and once for themselves. Because people are no longer "forced" to buy food at the grocers that profession will wither away, and food bought outside the public cafe system will be that much more expensive. People who object to the whole system will find themselves on the receiving end of a shrieking barrage of abuse about how they support "starvation" and "malnutrition."
I have seen your future dinners, and they are full of mystery meat.
