Editorial: Strategizing food: stick, carrot but not nearly enough dairy?

Christopher H. Knight

摘要

C'est la soupe qui fait le soldat. Loosely translated as 'an army marches on its stomach' and attributed variously to Frederick the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte, this expression exemplifies the importance attributed to a nutritious diet by the dynastic leaders of the 18th century, a policy which led directly to the invention of food canning, amongst other things. The Iron Rations enjoyed by Wehrmacht troops as well as the Nazi Hunger Plan whereby food would be seized from Soviet citizens for the benefit of Germans are further evidence of the need, during times of conflict or challenge, to ensure ample availability of calories and protein. This is something which was far from assured in very many countries during the post-war rationing years, and still is for a large proportion of our global population (although that is another story). I can personally still remember some of the products and policies (national baby milk formula, free school milk) that were available in the UK early in the second half of the twentieth century, but more than that I remember the importance and common sense that was applied to diet by my elders and peers. Figure 1 shows (clockwise from top left), the weekly allowance of rationed foodstuffs for one person, milk powder imported from the USA, the 'fantasy menu' chosen by Gallup survey respondents and a food queue, all from the UK in the late 1940s. Dairy products figure prominently, although knowledge level is also apparent from the fact that the queue was for fruit and vegetables. Fast forward 30 years to the start of my research career and my discovery that new friends and neighbours knew little of the 'exotic' vegetables (courgette, for instance) I offered from my allotment but were happy to reciprocate with sweets for the kids, thus helping to explain the ail-too familiar site of skinny adults walking down our local High Street accompanied by obese offspring. Two words are probably sufficient to explain what had happened to food: Cheap and Fast. In the post-war years, Cheap Food policies adopted by governments in developed countries essentially following our opening aphorism led to a major reduction in the proportion of earnings spent on food. Fast Food invented and aggressively marketed by multinational corporations led (arguably) to the belief that food was simply 'there' and did not really need to be thought about, Just Eaten (the capitalization is deliberate, as you will probably understand!) The effect has been to turn the response to a challenge (plentiful food) into the challenge itself (obesity is now thought to be a bigger threat to health than smoking, at least in the UK). Globally, we are the first generation more likely to die as a result of lifestyle choices than infectious disease. This statement is taken from the Terms of Reference for The National Food Strategy, a major independent report into all aspects of the UK food industry undertaken for the UK Government and led by the restauranter Henry Dimbleby. Commissioned in 2019, the Strategy represents the first major reexamination of UK food policy since the Agriculture Act of 1947 and has now appeared in two parts published last year and last month. It is somewhat ironic that the process was overtaken by the most impactful infectious pandemic modern society has ever seen, such that the first objective for future actions emerged as 'Escape the junk food cycle to protect the NHS' (Protect the NHS was the COVID-19 watchword in the UK). The statement regarding global deaths was not substantiated and, whilst it is certainly true that diet-related illness is a major contributor to untimely death, I would question the use of the phrase lifestyle choices; where out-and-out malnutrition or starvation is concerned, it is not a choice. This is the fundamental difference as I see it. In the developed world we do, generally, have the choice to eat healthily, but many of us do not make it. Why is that? It can hardly be attributed to a lack of information; as adults we are bombarded with healthy eating advice, probably to the point where we simply stop listening to it. Much' of that information 'fingers' individual foods as inevitably bad whilst extolling the virtues of others as 'super-foods'. This is simultaneously over-simplistic (our digestive system is both incredibly complex and supremely adapted to deal perfectly well with a wide range of foods) and over-prescriptive; is it really impossible to eat well without adopting a '...tarian' (flexi.../vege.../pesce... and so on1) diet? Has 'balanced diet' lost its meaning? Or are we actually addressing the wrong question? Is it what we eat that is unhealthy, or how much of it we eat? The adoption of dairy alternatives by major dairy companies (ARLA's Joerd oatmilk, for instance) and the repositioning of food giants such as Unilever towards meat alternatives would suggest that multinational corporations are much more interested in simply selling more, irrespective of what. My wo

机译：C'est La Soupe Qui Fait Le Soldat。作为“陆军的肚子上的尸体”和归功于弗雷德里克的伟大和拿破仑波峰的人归功于弗雷德里克，这表达式举例说明了18世纪的Dynastic领导人归因于18世纪的核心领导者的重要性，这是直接领导本发明的政策食物罐头，其中包括其他东西。 Wehrmacht部队以及纳粹饥饿计划所享有的铁口粮，从苏联公民扣押的德国人民的利益是进一步证明需要，在冲突或挑战期间，以确保充足的卡路里和蛋白质的可用性。这是战后战后几年在很多国家的信仰中，仍然是我们全球人口的大部分（尽管这是另一个故事）。我可以个人仍然记得二十世纪下半叶早期在英国提供的一些产品和政策（国家婴儿牛奶配方，自由学校牛奶），但我记得的重要性和常识我的长辈和同龄人申请饮食。图1显示（从左上而顺时针），一人的每周允许配给食品，从美国进口的牛奶粉，由Gallup调查受访者选择的“幻想菜单”和19世纪40年代后期的英国各地的食品队列。乳制品的形象突出，虽然知识水平源于队列是水果和蔬菜的事实也明显。快速前进30年来开始我的研究职业生涯和我发现新朋友和邻居知之甚少“异国情调”蔬菜（例如，Gulfette，例如）我提供的分配，但很乐意为孩子们享受甜食，因此很乐意帮助解释一个熟悉的瘦身成年人的熟悉的现场，走下我们当地的高街，伴随着肥胖的后代。两个词可能足以解释食物中发生的事情：便宜和快速。在战后几年中，发达国家所采用的廉价食品政策基本上遵循我们的开放性失误导致在食品上花费比例的重大减少。跨国公司的快速食品由跨国公司销售（可听说）以至于，食物简单地“那里”而且真的需要思考，只是吃了（资本化是故意的，因为你可能会理解！）效果一直是将对挑战（丰富的食物）的回应转变为挑战本身（肥胖现在被认为是对健康的巨大威胁，而不是吸烟，而不是在英国）。在全球范围内，我们是一代人更有可能死于生活方式的选择而不是传染病。本声明采用国家粮食策略的职权范围，是英国政府对英国食品行业的各个方面的一项重大独立报告，由餐厅亨利德布比领导。该战略于2019年委托，代表了自1947年农业法案以来英国粮食政策的首次重大复审，现在已出现在去年和上个月出版的两部分。这一过程被最有影响力的传染病的现代社会所追求的过程有点讽刺，这是未来行动的第一个目标是“逃避垃圾食品周期以保护NHS”（保护NHS是Covid-英国的19个观点）。关于全球死亡的声明并非证实，同时饮食有关的疾病肯定是一个不合时宜的死亡的主要贡献者，我会质疑使用这句话的生活方式选择;在关注的地方出出营养不良或饥饿，它不是一种选择。这是我看到的根本差异。在我们所做的世界中，通常，有选择健康的选择，但我们中的许多人都没有成功。这是为什么？它几乎不能归因于缺乏信息;作为成年人，我们被健康的饮食建议被轰炸，可能是我们只需停止倾听的地步。当那种信息“手指的个人食物不可避免地是不可避免的，虽然将他人的美德作为”超级食品“。这同时过于简单，（我们的消化系统既令人难以置信的复杂，很自适应地用各种食物完全良好地处理）和过度规范;没有采用'...... tarian'（Flexi ... / vege ...... / pesce ...... at1）饮食，这真的不可能吃得很好吗？ '平衡饮食'失去了它的意思吗？或者我们实际上是解决了错误的问题吗？是我们吃的是不健康的，还是我们吃多少？通过大乳制品公司（Arla的Joerd Oatmilk，例如）和对肉类替代品的联合利华等食物巨头的重新定位的采用乳品替代品将暗示跨国公司对简单地销售更多，而且无论如何。我的窝

Editorial: Strategizing food: stick, carrot but not nearly enough dairy?

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅