Comment Central - Times Online - WBLG

Julie Burchill: Working-class hero

There’s nothing quite like a bit of class warfare. Julie Burchill, talking about the “obesity crisis” on the Today programme this morning, made me choke on my porridge. She said:

At a time where the gap between rich and poor is growing bigger, when state schools are much worse than they used to be, it’s so easy to blame these awful chav working class parents for stuffing turkey twizzlers down their kids faces. And not actually tackling the real root of the problem, which is the filthy class system of privilege and nepotism in this country, which means that even jobs that used to be open to bright working class kids – like being actresses or journalists – are being completely overrun by dumb middle class brats, whose parents have got them their jobs.

You don’t have to agree with her view to appreciate her fire. Entirely refreshing stuff. Hear the rest of the self-confessed redneck’s brilliant interview here.

Murad Ahmed

The old: are they fit or fat?

Europe, as it gets greyer and more arthritic, risks becoming an old people's home. Slow decline, and then fall. Wrong. Nicholas Ebersdadt and Hans Groth have an interesting article in The International Herald Tribune:

Its aging population is exceptionally healthy. As a result, its people are more capable of remaining productive into their advanced years now than they used to be, and perhaps even more so than their American counterparts. "Healthy aging" in fact may turn out to be a trump card for enhancing prosperity and international competitiveness - if Europeans are willing to play it as such.

For example:

Western Europeans' robust health could translate to competitive advantages. For example, Western Europeans have distinctly better odds of surviving their working years than do Americans. This difference affects economic potential, not least because longevity shifts people's cost-benefit calculus about whether to pursue higher education: The prospect of living longer generally encourages investment in learning and skills and thus facilitates higher productivity.

So hooray then. We don't have to breed like mad or euthanase the unproductive, we just have to crack the whip over the oldies. Actually, let's not be too optimistic says the demographer Phillip Longman:

In the United States, for example, the dramatic increases in obesity and sedentary lifestyles are already causing disability rates to rise among the population 59 and younger. Researchers estimate that this trend will cause a 10–20 percent increase in the demand for nursing homes over what would otherwise occur from mere population aging, and a 10–15 percent increase in Medicare expenditures on top of the program's already exploding costs. Meanwhile, despite the much ballyhooed "longevity revolution," life expectancy among the elderly in the United States is hardly improving. Indeed, due to changing lifestyle factors, life expectancy among American women aged 65 was actually lower in 2002 than it was in 1990, according to the Social Security Administration. The same declines in population fitness can now be seen in many other nations and are likely to overwhelm any public health benefits achieved through medical technology. According to the International Association for the Study of Obesity, an "alarming rise in obesity presents a pan-European epidemic."

I suspect that both opinions are right. America and Europe will have a geriatric underclass of the fat, sick and unproductive, as well as a golden oldie majority who are fit, active and a rich resource that society should draw on. Class, as ever, will out.

Robbie Millen

Junk food advertising: Legislate first, ask questions later...

A private members bill is being introduced to extend Ofcom's proposed ban on advertising so-called junk food.

They assert that such an extended ban will make a significant contribution to reducing obesity but are unable to offer compelling evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.

In the meantime The Grocer has this to say:

Weekly trade magazine the Grocer is launching a campaign, called Weigh It Up!, that aims to highlight the "absurdities" of the model used to classify what foods are banned from being advertised.

Ofcom used a nutrient profiling model, supplied by the Food Standards Agency, to determine which products are too high in salt, sugar and fat and therefore should be banned.

The Weigh it Up! campaign aims to point out the loopholes in this system. It says that on one hand it bans raisins, certain types of honey, All-Bran, Marmite, cheese and Greek yoghurt, and on the other lets chicken nuggets, curry and plain white bread escape the ban.

Perhaps the private bill sponsors could answer these points before advancing their plan.

The Tories shouldn't treat junk food manufacturers as polluters

The Conservative Party is consulting on a new plan to tackle obesity:

Food and drink manufacturers could be given strict quotas for producing fatty and sugary foods and alcohol under plans to tackle obesity and excessive drinking being considered by the Conservative Party.

The idea is that fat, salt and sugar have externalities and the people that manufacture them should be treated as polluters. Does this idea work?

Let's leave aside the bureaucratic difficulties of such a scheme, which are legion. Instead let's concentrate on the parallel being drawn between environmental polluters and these so-called social polluters. I am afraid it is not a good one.

Manufacturing food does not cause obesity. Consuming too much of it causes obesity. Actually even this may not be true, since lack of exercise plays an important role. So the companies who manufacture a chocolate bar do not create "pollution" of any kind. The proposal to tax Cadbury's for the sugar in their bar is similar to a proposal to tax Paul McCartney for the noise pollution caused when someone plays his records too loudly.

This idea should start and finish with this consultation paper.