According to the BBC News report, whilst there are some in the emdical profession sceptical about the report, the Government has accepted it as part of its overall "cancer strategy". So what could that mean? Well having watched Channel 4 News, and seen a debate with some one from the meat industry and a doctor, the cynic rose in me and made a bold prediction.
You see, if you take a look at the track record of this Government and its desire to interfere in all our lives and protect us all from our own stupidty (thereby sending a message that it is the state, not us, that is responsible for our health outcomes), there is a simple conclusion of where this is going to lead isn't there? The Government is going to start promoting vegetarianism and/or veganism as the "approved" way of life.
OK, yes I'm being cynical, but I can't help remembering how in May this year the Daily Mail (ok, spit the dummy and laugh at the source and then read on) reported about an email that had been sent from an official at the Environment Agency which outlined a strategy for doing just that.
The e-mail states: "It will be a case of introducing this gently as there is a risk of alienating the public majority." The official goes on to say it is "unlikely" that the Environment Agency would ever suggest adopting a fully vegan lifestyle. But the e-mail added: "Certainly encouraging people to examine their consumption of animal protein could be a key message."Now, the actual argument behind the email was not just the "health" issue but also that old chestnut climate change. After all, if we stop eating cows, sheep and pigs then there will be less cows, sheep and pigs farting. that means a reduction in methane which is seen as a major contributer to the theory of climate change along with CO2.
I could of course be totally and utterly wrong about this, but the politics of behaviour is the raison d'etre of this Government. They have accepted the premise that we're heading for fatty cancer-ridden doom as well planetary doom. Is it really that unlikely that they will link the debate up at some point?
Update: A commenter has drawn my attention to this article in the Guardian which says: "The health secretary, Alan Johnson, is convinced that two great challenges facing Britain - climate change and obesity - are linked."
19 comments:
If everyone ate perfectly healthily, never smoked or drank and lived longer, we'd be in a huge mess. We'd all live to need five hip replacements each, spend 30 years drawing pensions and there'd be no duty from booze and fags to pay for it all. Unless of course all this healthy, wholesome living left us all living such depressingly dull lives we all topped ourselves. Sir Humphrey hit the nail on the head when he said "smokers are national benefactors voluntarily laying down their lives for their friends..."
I can soon see packets of bacon coming with a government health warning on them.
Shop keepers only being allowed to sell processed meat to over 21s.
The establishment of meat free areas in eating establishments.
Glad there is only yogurt in my fridge for brekkies this morning.
Heaven forbid if the meat police had caught me with a bacon butty!
Your foresight is incredible. This came through on my daily news alert:
"Health secretary Alan Johnson speaks at the chief nursing officer's annual conference. He also outlines plans to make 'eco towns' 'fit towns' as well... "
So there it is...
From a purely resources point of view meat is a very inefficient way of getting calories.
*tsk*
Climate change is caused by smoking.
Everyone knows that.
CO2 is produced by exhalation. This is a scientifically proven fact and has been known about for hundreds of years. As such if we all stopped breathing, or cut down our breating by 20% we could have a meaningful impact on climate change. Plus if we all stopped eating not only would no-one die of cancer, but we would have saved the planet for mankind.
Simple, innit?
To cut cancer death rates simply restore the infant mortality rate of seventy years ago, return to the industrial conditions of the 1930's and 1940's and perhaps have a sizeable war.
Then there wouldn't be so many around to develop cancer.
Even more simple.
Alex, you forgot to mention that EVERYONE who has sadly got cancer was also found to have spent all their lives breathing, ergo breathing is carcenogenic, qed.
Well I think NuLabor are trying to do this, they just haven't got it in your order ex-pat alfie yet.
be careful.. veggie food causes farting, farting causes climate change..
how long before the banning of all food products and the introduction of the government approved nutri-pill
Iv'e just told my kids the goverment has decreed that McDonalds is now a banned place and Xmas is being banned,told them bonfire night is out as the goverment say it is dangerous, I am treading very carefully,as I noticed a rope on the tree outside our house has a hangman's knot on it.
Alan Johnson may be right. I reckon that the energy generated that is required to sustain us in our lazy modern ways equals the calorific value of the adipose tissue (fat to you) we have accumulated around our guts and arses. However as one of your commenters has stated if we exercise more to prevent lard deposition, we will produce more CO2. The key therefore is to eat less and starve ourselves. MY GOD you are right - the 2 are related!!
imagine 100 yrs of nulab....a world of vegan bisexuals all the same race with cctv stuck on them all singing the leaders praises....oh dear its the Daleks.
Perhaps the solution to larger numbers of herbivores and ruminants farting and so contributing to global warming is to eat a lot more of them?
In any case, aren't they nature's way of processing indigestible material in order to make it suitable for consumption by animals further up the food chain? Thus grass becomes beef/lamb and God knows what ends up as chicken. It's the way it's supposed to be!
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a bunch of tossers with a similar name to this 'world cancer' lot bombarding me with begging letters in the late 90s.
Back them their literature read like something produced by the temperance wing of the vegetarian society, which makes me suspect that they may have pre-judged their research.
"From a purely resources point of view meat is a very inefficient way of getting calories"
But it's a good way to get protein? The alternative is beans, but we all know what beans do
No, wait. Fuck it: scrub my last comment. This just isn't funny anymore. Those fucking fucked-up fuckwits. WHat isz the best string to successfully google bomb making recipes? But please reply promptly: I've only 4 days to get this done.
A couple of weeks ago the Los Angeles Times had a leader hinting that we should all become vegetarian because meat eating required livestock (particularly cattle) which was responsible for massive methane production and was more significant in causing climate change than car emissions.
But not as significant as the earth tilting on its axis? COuld we use nuclear bombs or the power of positive thinking to stop the earth tilting, then we wouldn't have the hemispherical warming/cooling that causes so much misery for some.
Post a Comment