We’re against this sort of thing
Of course we’re against the Food Foundation. Not just their recommendations on things but upon the very idea that anyone takes note of them. But there’s a larger level at which we’re against this sort of thing:
Guidance urging schools in England to serve children meat at least three times a week should be overhauled in order to increase the eating of vegetables and legumes, a leading charity has said.
A report published by the Food Foundation has found that children eat proportionally more processed meat than adults, with more than a third (36%) of meat eaten by children coming from processed meat such as bacon, ham, and sausages, compared with 29% of adults.
Or a different report upon the same, erm, report:
Schools should stop serving sausage rolls and ham sandwiches because they increase the risk of diseases including cancer, a report has warned.
Analysis by The Food Foundation found more than a third of meat eaten by children was processed or ultraprocessed — such as ham, sausages and chicken nuggets.
The charity blamed the “meaty menus” found in schools and at nearby takeaways for preventing children eating meals rich in plants and fibre or healthier, unprocessed meat products such as lean beef and chicken breast.
That higher level is that it’s absurd that there’s anyone at all trying to establish such rules from the centre. That such rules do exist - centrally planned - is obvious from the manner in which the suggestion is that those central rules should be changed. It’s that centrality which is absurd.
Power to the people is indeed our mantra - we are liberals after all. That means maximising the area of life which is subject to individual - or locally collective if you prefer as in the school dinner ladies deciding - decision making and minimising that subject to pecksniffs at the centre. Choice, not imposition.
One of the grand glories of the past half century or so is the manner in which such choice over sex and sexuality has expanded. We’re now - roughly and about - where we should be. As long as the subject of your physical and or emotional interest is a consenting adult human then what business is it of anyone else’s? Subject, as always, to that not in the streets even if we’ve not the horses to get frightened these days.
At the same time we’ve the imposition of regulations on how many days a week primary school children may have a ham sandwich.
Perhaps there’s some bolus of pecksniffery in a society which will have its way upon one subject or another. If we expand righteous and just freedoms in one area then we have to retreat in another. People being able to decide where they live - instead of subject to the local council mandates on housing availability - has to be traded off against the banning of vapes. Could be but that’s a rather depressing thought. We prefer to think that society does indeed contain those pecksniffs who wish to impose their will. The secret to a decent civilisation is simply to ignore them. Or leave them to rule their spouses perhaps. You know, consenting adult humans who have actually signed up - quite literally on the dotted line - for such subservience. The rest of us not so much.
The aim is, after all, the maximisation of human liberty, right? Having given up that attempt to control everyone else’s sexuality can’t we do the same for their diets? In fact, we’ve a little list here of things government should not be trying to control….
Tim Worstall