Only one in five eats five a day

News from the BBC health team that is both sad and encouraging:

Just one in five Britons eats the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, a poll for World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) suggests. The Department of Health first launched its five-a-day campaign in 2003.

Sad to think of all the millions wasted on this campaign, but encouraging that Britons aren't yet so submissive as to rush out and do whatever the government tells them.

The article goes on to quote Kate Mendoza, head of education for the WCRF, explaining what healthy eating entails:

A diet based on plant foods, such as wholegrains and pulses as well as fruit and vegetables, can reduce cancer risk as research shows they protect against a range of cancers. Recent research has confirmed that foods containing fibre reduce the risk of bowel cancer.

Never mind meat. Eat your whole grains and pulses.

A sidebar elaborates:

WHAT IS 'FIVE A DAY'?

• It equals around 400g of fruit and/or veg
• One portion is 80g
• A portion equals two or more small fruits ie (sic) satsumas, one medium-sized fruit ie (sic) an apple or banana, or half a grapefruit or one large slice of melon
• A portion of veg would be two broccoli spears or three heaped tablespoons of cooked vegetables such as carrots, peas or sweetcorn
• Potatoes do not count
• But fresh, frozen, tinned and dried fruit and vegetables do
• Smoothies can count for up to two of your five a day
• Pulses and beans count as one portion - no matter how much you eat 

Now, I don't actually know what the ideal diet is, but I do know that opinions differ wildly. If we're unfortunate enough to have a nanny state in 50 years time, it will be interesting to see what guidance they give.

First steps towards SmokeFree Movies?

One of the crazier neo-prohibitionist schemes highlighted at Velvet Glove, Iron Fist in recent months was the idea of SmokeFree Movies:

Welcome to the world of SmokeFree Movies, [Stanton] Glantz's quixotic campaign to banish tobacco from our screens (for the children, natch). Despite years of being ridiculed and ignored on this issue, Stan is continuing his crusade and has written yet another paper on the subject (he has written a lot).

Today, he claims that 100,000 Californian 12-17 year olds are smokers as a direct result of seeing smoking in the movies. This is a figure that he alone invented and which even hardcore anti-smoking head-bangers like Simon Chapman find laughable.

Laughable indeed.  But this evening I happened so see an alarming notice in the end credits of the Sherlock Holmes sequel:

No person or entity associated with this film received payment or anything of value, or entered into any agreement, in connection with the depiction of tobacco products.

For all I know, these notices have been obligatory for years (perhaps as part of a tobacco advertising ban), but whether they're required by current statutes or simply included to avoid future legal trouble, it's an outrageous imposition.

Whatever you may think of the practice of 'product placements', it's surely not the sort of thing that should be illegal.  When the government sees fit to outlaw paid depiction of tobacco products, what's to stop them from applying the same logic to alcohol and soft drinks?  And how long before they decide that any depiction, paid or unpaid, should be forbidden?

We are a long way down the slippery slope.

UPDATE:

Sure enough, Googling for the notice above turns up a hit at http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu.  It's the second point of their four-point plan:

2. Certify no pay-offs. The producers should post a certificate in the closing credits declaring that nobody on the production received anything of value (cash money, free cigarettes or other gifts, free publicity, interest-free loans or anything else) from anyone in exchange for using or displaying tobacco.
Where we are now: In 2008, Time Warner began including the following language in the end credits of selected films: “No person or entity associated with this film received payment or anything of value, or entered into any agreement, in connection with the depiction of tobacco products.”

So it seems that what we have at the moment is voluntary compliance with the demands of some unpleasant monomaniacs. A disturbing development, nonetheless.

The worst kind of corporatism

Reading the BBC's coverage of the F-35 debacle, all you see is some tedious political point-scoring:

The government has changed its mind over the type of fighter planes it is ordering for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier. ... The cost of the U-turn is likely to be about £100m ... Labour said it was an "omnishambles" which risked "international ridicule".

They can talk!

The coverage from Lewis Page at The Register is rather more insightful:

It's well known that the F-35B will cost a lot more to buy and more to run than the F-35C catapult version: and it's also well known that the main cost of aircraft carriers is not the ships but the planes. So, right out of the gate, we can see that this is a foolish decision. In fact it's a lot worse than it seems, as the contest in real life was not between the F-35B and the F-35C: it was between the F-35B and - for the immediate future - one or another cheap, powerful, modern carrier jet already in service. This would most most likely have been the F-18 Hornet as used by the US Navy and many other air forces around the globe, but possibly the French Rafale instead of or alongside Hornets. 

I'm not a military expert, but this analysis makes sense to me. It seems like yet another inexplicable decision from the MoD.

once we had some F-18s we would seldom bother using our Eurofighters and Tornados, and we would surely rethink our current plans to massively upgrade them. We might in fact, if we were smart, reconsider having them at all. And this would be terrible news for the company which has those fat service contracts under which those planes are run, the company which built the British parts of them: namely BAE Systems plc. ... A catapult carrier in the Royal Navy, then, is something that BAE Systems passionately does not want to see happen.

Important, then, that such vested interests are kept well clear of the decision making process.

The "fact" that has changed, we are told, is that the cost of putting catapults into HMS Prince of Wales is now thought to be enormously more than had been estimated - it has increased by as much as ten times over, to perhaps £2bn, pushing up the cost of the carrier project by a third or a half. ...

And it is pretty well impossible to avoid noticing that the lead contractor on the carriers - the company which gets to set the price of fitting them with catapults - is ... (drum roll) ... none other than BAE Systems plc, the company which stands to lose many, many billions if the Royal Navy gets catapult ships any time soon.

This is the worst kind of corporatism. The government has only two essential functions: maintaining law and order at home, and defending against foreign aggression. A combination of incompetence and corruption has allowed our defensive capabilities to be fatally undermined. To protect our territory, we must now rely on assistance from the likes of France. Which I'm sure suits some people just fine.

Taxophilia

Another superb article from Detlev Schlichter:

The debate over taxing the rich has reached new depth in the United States with a true man of letters entering the fray. Depth, that is, as in low point. What the essay by acclaimed and popular novelist Stephen King lacked in profundity it made up for in profanity: Tax me, for f@%&’s sake, was Mr. King’s eloquent plea to the government he so admires.

One of the freedoms that Americans of any income bracket still enjoy is the freedom to give more to the government than the government already takes from them by force. If you think that the government can spend your money better than you can, you are free to write them an extra check each year and hand it over with your tax return. King grudgingly acknowledges that he, like everybody else, has that right but that is not enough for him. He wants to see the state take more from ‘rich’ people, himself included, by force, and thus put it to better uses than the rich people themselves ever could.

The whole article is well worth reading.

Dino farts warmed the earth

Giant dinosaurs could have warmed the planet with their flatulence, say researchers.

British scientists have calculated the methane output of sauropods, including the species known as Brontosaurus.

By scaling up the digestive wind of cows, they estimate that the population of dinosaurs - as a whole - produced 520 million tonnes of gas annually.

How very inconsiderate.

And how grateful we must be to our state broadcaster for highlighting such important facts.

France lurches further left

BBC News reports:

French President-elect Francois Hollande is to start work on forming a new government, after telling supporters his victory gave hope of an end to austerity.

Mr Hollande has vowed to rework a deal on government debt in eurozone member-countries to focus on promoting growth.

The Socialist leader won just under 52% of votes in Sunday's run-off election.

Centre-right incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy is the first French president since 1981 not to win a second term.

'At the scene', Christian Fraser gives the view from Socialist HQ:

The excitement has been building for two weeks, it was mixed with relief and perhaps some disbelief when the first estimate was broadcast. They have waited 17 years for a Socialist president.
...
A teacher and a lifelong Socialist was standing next to me as the result came in - he wept. "It's an incredible moment," he said. "Not just for the Socialist Party but for France, for Europe. "

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Maybe Hollande will succeed in making our own socialist government appear "Centre-right".

NHS vetoes alcohol licence

Another excellent post from Christopher Snowdon: 

The news from Scotland is, as usual, not good...

Alcohol licences rejected after warning from NHS over health concerns 

A supermarket and two independent retailers have had their alcohol licence application rejected after objections from the local health board.

WHAT?!?

Sainsbury’s wanted to open a new store in the Cowgate, Edinburgh as part of the development of a site which was destroyed by a fire in 2002. NHS Lothian warned the Edinburgh Licensing Board that granting the licence went against the protection of public health.

Are you kidding me? What kind of moron would give bureaucrats from the NHS the power to reject planning applications?

The Scottish Government have recently given health boards the chance to object to new licences.

Oh, sweet devolution. This is local option for the twenty-first century—the preferred halfway house for would-be prohibitionists since time immemorial.

As usual, I recommend the whole article.

I was reminded of another news item, this one from the zealots at the BBC:

Are beer firms to blame for Native American drink woe?

For generations, the dream of a sober society has eluded one of the largest Native American tribes in the US.

Members of the Oglala Sioux tribe, living in South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, have long tried to shut down the beer stores just across the state line in White Clay, Nebraska.

It's always the fault of those evil profit-makers on the supply side.  Restrict supply, and everything will be fine.

Possessing and drinking alcohol has been totally banned in Pine Ridge reservation for more than 100 years, except for a short period in the 1970s. Nevertheless, bootlegging on the reservation is said to be rampant.

Never mind that some people have pretty miserable lives, from which alcohol and drugs are the only escape.  We can't trust the plebs to make decisions for themselves.

Nanny knows best.