nanny state

And her mother got to 101 with a good helping of gin!
I shall continue to enjoy my one glass of wine with my dinner every night and keep eating lots and lots of fruit and veg, simply because I enjoy them.
I liked the chapter on food in Bad Science, it reinforced my own suspicions.

It made me laugh that the next item on the news that morning was how Her Maj likes her gin and Dubonnet. She seems to look well enough on it!

I should like to know what basis has been used for this new recommendation (not actually government in this case) that women should not drink more than 1/4 pint beer a day or 50 ml wine. That's just over 3 tablespoons of wine. Actually, come to think of it, I have no desire whatsoever to know anything more about it at all. So :-P to them.

As for five a day – it's all sorts of other numbers in other countries. Totally random.

bagswhere did you find that? It's hilarious!

I wonder if PRINTMISS actually meant young, possibly teenage mothers with no partner left to their own devices with a child and living on benefits. With little or no education about cooking nutritious meals or about budgeting, this must be a hugely difficult situation, at least for those with only limited family support. Of course, she might not have meant this at all, so perhaps I should shut up.

I also have 2 daughters with children who have chosen not to marry. They both cook for their children and are knowledgeable about nutrition. Is the issue intended to mean young parents who have not learned how to budget and provide meals on a shoestring, where income is limited?

How it works:

The Nanny State Process

PRINTMISS, whilst not disagreeing completely with your post, I would point out that I have two daughters who are unmarried mums who are quite capable of, and regularly do, cook nutritious, healthy meals for themselves, their partners and their babies!

I think that I have had my allowance until November this week!

I like the zooming out imagery.

Which we couldn,t do without all the info that gets pumped out.....

Hmmm

Small but relevant point: WE are "the state", not the government. Certainly our health is our business. I think the reason I get pissed off with all the so-called health recommendations that are published in newspapers is that most of them change after a few years . The smoking one hasn't. And everybody knows drinking too much alcohol is bad for your health. People who don't 'listen' to their own bodies, which tell us when we've had enough, but just go with the flow because "everybody's doing it" and it's the fashionable "thing to do" (in some circles!) will not listen to recommendations. So most of it's a waste of "the state's" (that is, our) money. [grump emoticon]

Not that anything's going to change. The government will continue to tell us what's good or bad for us and we will continue to listen and scoff and make our own minds up.

Fun, isn't it?

It is an outdated term nowadays, Printmiss. There are many 'unmarried' couples who are no different from married ones except for the absence of a certificate. I was a single mum of teenagers from my mid-forties through no fault of my own. Of course, what you mean is young women who have babies without the benefit (?) of a partner but there is no reason why these should be less domesticated than those who have managed to find a husband. In fact, they have probably had an identical education.

Printmiss - I am curious as to why you specify 'unmarried mums' - does marriage confer nutritional expertise?

Zooming out a bit, if no one had done the research on the lifestyles of 40,000 British doctors in the 1950s we would all be smoking 40 a day because we still believed the adverts that said it was good for us.
And the state does have an interest in our health, because it pays the bills when we get ill. So it is their business.
I read somewhere recently (and I cannot vouch for its authenticity) it is not the healthier people who live to be very old that cost the most money to the NHS - they tend to go downhill quite rapidly when they go. It's the much younger people who develop chronic conditions as a result of smoking, drinking, lack of exercise and overeating. Because when they go into hospital they often recover and require years of further treatment.
(Yes I know lots of people develop chronic conditions having had blameless lives - but the ranks of the self-inflicted are growing rather rapidly)

I just think the money spent on all this research could be better used in providing young people from the less privileged areas information on how to use their available money more wisely, i.e. if you can get them to school, have cookery lessons and show them how to cook a decent meal, instead of a bag of crisps and a cola, or perhaps start a programme for young unmarried mums on how they can best use their allowances by providing their children with nutritious meals - after all these are the people we are going to rely on for state pensions in the future, if they can find work. Sorry, I do have a thing about getting people to look after themselves, starting at a very young age, and I really don't know why I assume it is only the under-privileged who need the education, it's is just that they seem to be the ones who hit the head-lines.

Does a government act on properly researched information or just their spin doctors 'good ideas'? Discuss

Same with daily F & V numbers as well. Sigh!

Funny you should mention that, nag. DH just said the same thing!

Quite, Bags. And the last government admitted that the number of units for the so-called 'safe' level of alcohol consumption had been 'plucked out of the air', and had no medical or scientific basis.

Sorry. Just being wicked . It's what nanny-statism does to me.

I wonder if that was reported in the DM too

There have been studies (nearly wrote stuffies) which concluded that eating five F & V portions a day doesn't make a scrap of difference to whatever it was they were supposed to make a difference to. Was it supposed to prevent some form of cancer? It might take me a while to find out where, who and what, but the stuffies studies were probably at least as good as this latest Poxford one.

I was pleased it not specifically mention gin or rum..I might be OK

I do not think guidelines make a huge difference though you do hear people say I have had my five today when referring to fruit and veg so maybe some have increased the amount of F&V they eat.
Think people more aware of different type of fats and of 'hidden' sugars. It will have informed and made a difference to some folk..but others will do as they like/ have always done .
Smoking restrictions has had an impact in some aspects I think. Not sure if there have been a drop in cigarette sales though.

According to the front page of the Daily Mail Bags, we should now drink no more than three glasses of wine per WEEK . Fortunately, there is still time to add another bottle of gin to this week's shopping list.

Oh, it's OK. Found something on the Beeb. Just going to read it.