In which alcohol researchers discover something called a "party" - and want it stopped

Intrepid Alcohol Researcher learn about the Party

John Holmes the neo-puritan who runs the Alcohol Research Group at the University of Sheffield has stepped away from his usual reliance on using computer modelling as his source or evidence to look at actual human behaviour. And our intrepid researcher approaches this study with the arrogance of a 1950s social anthropologist describing the marriage practice of some previously unknown jungle tribe.

However, we also see occasions that are commonplace but attract less attention from policy makers and public health advocates. For example, 14% of drinking occasions involved domestic gatherings of family and friends, perhaps at house parties and dinner parties or to watch the football. On average people drank the equivalent of a bottle of wine or four pints of beer on these occasions and, in many cases, they consumed more than this. Yet such occasions are rarely discussed when identifying the kinds of drinking problems that need to be tackled.

The discovery that people have parties must have been pretty shocking really. Who knew? And what a delightfully neo-puritan statement concludes Holmes' discovery of the party - "...identifying the kinds of drinking problems that need to be tackled". You and your friends and family chilling round a barbeque (assuming we actually get some sunshine), celebrating a new job or maybe just getting together to share a drink and have a laugh - these events, my friends, are "drinking problems that need to be tackled".

Holmes goes on to fret a little more. You see the neo-puritan fussbuckets at Sheffield have been the main advocates of minimum unit pricing as a means of stopping people (in particular poor people) from drinking. This advocacy was almost entirely based on the torturing of Holmes' computer model plus some very creative interpretations of price elasticity. At no point did the Sheffield researchers ever consider actual drinking behaviour by real people. And now, having seen how real people consume alcohol, the conclusion is that something else must be done to stop all this partying, pleasure and drunkenness:

Introducing a minimum price for alcohol and providing drinking guidelines for those deemed lower risk might reduce habitual alcohol consumption, but these policies might do less to tackle heavy drinking where getting intoxicated and letting the hair down is the main motivation and where the location, company and timing are all conducive to sidelining concerns about price and long-term health.

You see the problem don't you. When we get in a few bottles, cook up a big chilli and invite folk round to celebrate a new job, a big win or a graduation, we're not thinking about our health or how much all that lovely booze is costing. We're just planning on having a damned good night and waking up in the morning with a hangover. This is, of course, exactly how parties work - unless of course, you're working in an Alcohol Research Group where, presumably, celebrations are more muted featuring only tap water and decaffeinated coffee.

The sad thing is that, now these researchers have discovered that people like to have a drink at parties, they'll be working overtime to develop 'strategies' intended to stop this happening. We'll get the usual finger wagging fussbucketry - ad bans, turgid lectures about drink, more licensing restrictions - and to this will be added new wheezes like limiting how much booze you can buy at a time. Of course what these neo-puritans actually want is prohibition and they plan on introducing it by stealth.

.....

Looks like it's only the mad dogs left...

At least if we follow the latest guidance from the Church of Public Health:

There is no safe or healthy way to get a tan from sunlight, new guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has warned.

The health watchdog's latest guidance also says an existing tan provides little protection against sun exposure.

It recommends using at least factor 15 sun cream, with adults urged to use 6-8 teaspoons (35ml) per application.

Benefits from building up vitamin D from the sun have to be balanced with the risks of skin cancer, it adds.

You remember all those years ago when the merest glimpse of watery sunshine resulted in us stripping layers of clothing off to bask in its glory? When your mum, spotting the opportunity to get some peace and quiet threw you out into the garden with as few clothes on as possible (and sun cream - what is sun cream)? Those days are gone, the midday sun is left solely to the mad dogs.

What absolute frothing lunacy is this - rickets is on the increase and over 90% people with skin cancers survive but the Chief Medical Officer, NICE and the assorted fussbuckets prefer to scare us about cancer while not giving a damn about kids getting deformities from being kept in a dark room in case a ray of sunshine should accidentally splash onto an unprotected portion of skin.

The guidance goes into contortions that are more reminiscent of the hokey-cokey to describe how we can expose skin to build up Vitamin D with first one arm, then another exposed for a 'short period' to the evil rays or the dreaded sun.

It does seem that it's not the dogs that are mad but the entirety of the public health profession.

.....

Bernard Jenkin MP. Nannying fussbucket and monumental numpty.

****

This MP really did say this:

‘I think Osborne should carry on with the cuts but ameliorate the introduction for those worst affected. It would show he is listening and compassionate If he needs the extra revenue and cannot find other short-term savings, he should be considering the Sugar Tax.’

He really did. And it proves without doubt that the man is an unthinking numpty. Not just because I don't like the idea of a sugar tax but because Mr Jenkin is proposing to mitigate the impact of a change in welfare benefits on the poorest by introducing a tax that will disproportionately affect the poorest. Including a whole load of people who, right now, aren't affected at all by the changes in tax credits. And, unless it's set at a seriously punitive, tobacco duty sort of level that sugar tax won't raise anything like enough. As I said, nannying fussbucket and complete numpty.

...

Sorry but smoking doesn't harm Gedling Council's reputation

Gedling Borough Council (it's in Nottinghamshire and Labour-controlled, since you ask) is proposing the further demonisation and stigmatising of its employees - the ones that smoke that is:

"Whilst at work, and so far as is reasonably practicable, employees who smoke in accordance with this policy should do so with their Gedling Borough Council uniform covered as not doing so may create a negative impression of the council when viewed by the public."

Since when did smoking give a negative impression of the Council? Since officious HR managers and self-righteous councillors started treating smokers like pariahs. Ever since the smoking ban in 2007 (and long before that in many councils) smokers have clustered round the doors, on windswept pavements and corners. I'm guessing this looks untidy to those officious managers and is accompanied by moans from other employees about smoking breaks (like those other workers don't use up Council time talking about their holidays, making tea or playing solitaire on the phone).

What this policy is about is the isolation of smokers - it is but a short step away from a man with a bell parading in front of them crying "unclean, unclean". No health purpose is served and it isn't about the Council's image - it's simply nannying fussbucketry, rules for the sake of rules. A much better approach would be to provide a shelter for staff that smoke perhaps with somewhere to sit away from the doorways where smokers currently clump. But that would be thoughtful and considerate - why would the Council want to treat smokers that way, they're smelly scum aren't they?
....

What are schools for? Nannying fussbucketry it seems!

****

You and I (like I guess most people) take the view that schools are there to educate children. And by this we mean things like teach them to read, read write and add up, give them a grasp of geography and history, and generally provide them with the tools to get on in the world. It seems that this now extends to 'healthy-eating' and the suppression of enterprise:

A 15 year old schoolboy has been threatened with suspension making £14,000 selling sweets to pals in the playground.

Budding businessman Tommie Rose, has made a fortune by selling chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks to pupils at Buile Hill High School, Salford. He buys them in bulk and sells them at competitive prices, even employing two mates to help run his business, paying them £5.50 a day. He says the money will go towards his University tuition fees.

Nobody is hurt by Tommie's initiative - the school decided it wouldn't sell sweets, fizzy drinks or crisps and he stepped into the gap left by this decision. Tommie's fellow pupils get a service, he makes some money and everyone's happy. Except for Tommie's po-faced headteacher:

"We admire this pupil’s entrepreneurship but school is not the place to set-up a black market of fizzy drinks, sweets and chocolates. We have extremely high standards and with our healthy eating policy we don’t allow isotonic drinks, fizzy drinks and large amounts of sweets for the good of our children. Our high standards are set out to pupils and their parents at the start of the school year."

Firstly it's not a 'black market' and secondly when did schools take it upon themselves to acts as dietary policemen? This phrase "for the good of our children" is so typical of the self-serving indulgence of the nannying fussbucket. It's fine if the school wants to stop selling such good itself (although it's clearly missing a trick) but utterly wrong of them to then police the provision made by individual initiative to fill the demand for those products.

....

Nannying fussbucketry - it's enough to drive you to drink!

****

Tracey Crouch MP who is one of parliament's leading health fascists has sent out a 'report' from her All Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Abuse. It is - no surprise - a collection of every favoured piece of intervention from the temperance, New Puritan and prohibition campaigns - health warnings on wine bottles, lower drink-driving limits, minimum unit pricing for alcohol, advertising controls and - gleefully jumping on some nonsense from Gary Lineker - sponsorship bans.

The proposals says Tracey are needed because:

“We are experiencing nothing short of a national crisis in the UK because of alcohol – we need to act now to stop it.”

Now we know this is arrant nonsense - alcohol consumption has fallen by around 20% over the past decade and the sharpest falls have been among young people. We already have some of the highest taxes on booze in the world and we invest millions in nannying the hell out of drinkers.

But our Tracey knows better - she waves as £21bn 'cost of alcohol' figure as justification. Yet we also know that this figure - even if it is remotely accurate (which it isn't) - fails to take account of the benefits we get as a society from alcohol. Not just the pleasure a drink brings for most of the population but the wages of over a million people employed making, distributing and serving drinks. Plus the billions our economy gains from the export of drinks - whisky, gin, beer and assorted other drinks are a major export industry for the UK.

Tracey Crouch and her like are po-faced spoilsports, judgemental nannies who use the problems of a few to punish the pleasures of the many. Their proposals would make for a duller, less happy and more controlled society, one where tutting little fascists with clipboards patrol the lives of ordinary folk.

This nannying fussbucketry -it's enough to drive you to drink!

....

"Ooh, I've etten some stuff!" - eating out should be fun not part of a calorie-controlled diet!

We eat out more than we used to and this is reflected in the proliferation of eateries, restaurants, takeaways and other businesses serving our desire for social eating. And the nannying fussbuckets have had eating out in their sights for some while.

So far the main target has been the fast food takeaway - the chip shop and all its ethnic and creative variations. In particular the nannies hated the big US chains - McDonalds, Burger King, KFC - with their shiny outlets and smart marketing. So when righteous criticism was levelled at the takeaway the references were to these celebrations of greasy American food.

Today the average person (in the UK at least) eats out between one and two times per week and this demand is met mostly by places that offer relatively cheaper food - pubs, curry restaurants, fish and chips, pizza and so forth. It's hard to find how often people go to more fancy restaurants - for many people the answer is never but for others its a special treat. We used to go to (the now sadly closed) Weavers restaurant in Haworth for birthdays, anniversary and as a pre-Christmas treat.

So when we go to these restaurants - for a special occasion, a treat - we're not going to do this:

"Go for wholegrain or wholemeal breads, protein rich foods like lean meats, chicken, eggs and pulses and plenty of fruit and vegetables.

"Be careful with high fat extras like cheese, bacon, sour cream and mayonnaise on burgers, wraps and salads and avoid larger portion sizes.

"Avoid ordering fried sides and sugar sweetened drinks, as this will quickly increase the calorie content of your meal. If you do fancy a fizzy drink then select a diet version. If your meal does not come with vegetables or salad, order some on the side, or ask to swap a higher fat side such as chips for an undressed side salad or fruit bag instead." 

Instead we've going to pig ourselves a little big, drink a little more than normal - have something that is good for us, something the fussbuckets have forgotten about. It's called a 'good time'.

Our rediscovery of eating as a social activity is fantastic as is the fact that so many more of us can afford to do what my parents couldn't do - take their families out for a meal. But, as with all the ways in which our modern consumer society is so much better than the society of our youth, the nannying fussbuckets want to tell us that somehow it'll all end in tears. For these sad folk - who want us to have a 'fruit bag' (whatever that may be) instead of a bowl of lovely chips - everything is a problem. When we're not destroying our health with our enjoyment of life, we're threatening the planet by emitting carbon or some such scientific mumbo jumbo.

The world's po-faced puritans believe that all this pleasure and enjoyment represents a cost to society. They do not care one jot for the benefit we get from eating out, they simply want to nag us about how we're eating too much when we visit the restaurant:

"The message is that eating fast food or out in restaurants should be the exception not the norm as it can be very bad for you. In addition to the extra calories consumed people also ate more sugar, salt and saturated fats than when they are home-made food."

What this ghastly nanny fails to realise is that this is entirely the point - eating out is an indulgence, a joy and a pleasure. At the end of the meal we want to push back the chair, a big grin on our face, and say; "ooh, I've etten some stuff!" And quite frankly nibbling on a few salad leaves while feeling virtuous simply doesn't cut the mustard.

....

Bogus booze and fake fags...

****

Prices soar thanks to the government's ravenous desire for our cash and the urging of the Church of Public Health to ban everything that gives pleasure (because pleasure is addictive). And the consequence is that the criminals arrive:

As shoppers prepare to stock up on alcohol to celebrate the festive season, Essex County Council's Trading Standards team is warning that bottles of counterfeit spirits, particularly vodkas are in circulation. 

This won't only be in Essex - across the UK enterprising criminals are gaming the gap between the cost of production (or the price of purchase overseas) and the tax-inflated prices in Britain's shops. And the bigger the gap, the bigger the margins for the criminal and the greater the temptation to break the law.

The consequence, of course, is that stuff like this happens:

The illicit substances were tested and it was found the vodka was in fact industrial alcohol and contained a chemical commonly used in bleach, as well as xylene and toluene – two compounds found in paint stripper and dangerous for human consumption.

You see the criminals don't care. They're not bothered if they poison you or make you blind. Nor are these entrepreneurs fussed at all about selling fags and booze to children. And as the nannying fussbucketry continues, as the duty on booze and fags rises, the problem will get worse. Just look at Ireland:

Customs officials have smashed a major smuggling gang and seized nine million cigarettes.

Four men were being quizzed over the massive seizure following the intelligence led operation involving officers from Revenue’s Customs Service, in conjunction with CAB and Gardai.

This bust has an estimated potential loss to revenue of €3.7 million and estimated street value of €4.3 million.

Of course some people continue to pretend that all this isn't a problem -  denying that approach a quarter of the tobacco consumed in ireland is smuggled (because the data comes from the tobacco companies).

It seems wrong that adherents to the Church of Public Health are happy to see people poisoned, blinded or killed and for criminals to make millions from smuggling and manufacturing fakes rather than admit their approach isn't working.

....

Very rich hobby farmer wants poor people to pay more for food

****

We've known for a while that our future king is, how do we put this? Ah, yes - rather too much of a hippie for his own (and our) good. All the talking to plants, alternative medicine, organic farming and old-fashioned architecture is rather sweet. But when he talks about food and the food industry he displays the arrogance of being, not merely a hippie, but a very wealthy hippie.

Charles said the drive to make food cheaper for consumers and to earn companies bigger profits was sucking real value out of the food production system – value that was critical to its sustainability.

Now Charles might not be living in a recession but the rest of us are and telling us that food should be more expensive is really quite objectionable. Especially when it's wrapped up in all those trendy, middle-class green movement words like "resilience" and "sustainability". Worse still, our king-to-be has discovered nannying fussbucketry and the blaming of obesity on the food industry rather than on people choosing to eat too much.

What is most striking (and this is very typical of this sort of wealthy man greenery - Transition Towns being a fine example) is that Charles is chiefly interested in the producer - those farmers - rather than the consumer.

"It has also led to a very destructive effect on farming. We are losing farmers fast. Young people do not want to go into such an unrewarding profession.

"In the UK, I have been warning of this for some time and recently set up apprenticeship schemes to try to alleviate the problem, but the fact remains that at the moment the average age of British farmers is 58, and rising."

The cause of that decline isn't that we've stopped consuming farming product (especially if you take Charles' obesity point as true). The decline is because - despite the subsidies and price fixing - many of our farms are uneconomic. And whilst it's tough on the romantic notion of farming (the sort Charles plays at with his tailored tweeds and hand-crafted shepherd's stick) most of us would rather have the cheap food.

And the farming won't go away - it will intensify. Which means fewer input costs to produce the same amount of fine food. If we wibble on about soil and local systems, we are completely missing the point and worse, we'll be making food more expensive and poor people poorer.

So next time you hear this wealthy - very wealthy - hobby farmer calling for higher food prices, just remember who benefits. It isn't you and me - we're going to pay more for our food and drink. Instead it's Charles and his castle-dwelling German farmer friends who'll suck up the higher prices and syphon off the new subsidies. And maybe a few ageing, overworked hill farmers might stay on a year or two longer than they should.

....

Jamie, Nigella, Delia...you're making us fat!

 

Or so says Dr Ricardo Costa, senior lecturer in nannying fussbucketry at the University of Coventry (do these places spring up overnight - until today I didn't know Coventry had a University).

The study, published in the Food and Public Health journal, found that many celebrity chef recipes in cookbooks contained “undesirable levels” of saturated fatty acids (SFA), sugars and salt which are linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

Note the detail here and the words - "undesirable", "linked to" aren't really any justification for the headline: TV Chefs are "adding to obesity" and are typical New Puritan weasel words. After all I don't need any evidence at all to "link" something to something else and this is precisely what Dr Costa has done. The research simply runs a load of recipes from celebrity chefs through a computer model and publishes the results:

Food preparation recipes (n=904), covering a wide range of meal types, from 26 dominant British based Celebrity Chefs were randomly sampled from literature and web sources. Recipes were blindly analysed through dietary analysis software by three trained dietetic researchers (CV 6.9%). The nutritional value of each recipe was compared against national healthy eating benchmark guidelines using a healthy eating index (HEI).

Nothing in the research suggests that Jamie, Nigella and Delia are making us all obese with their glorious culinary temptations. The authors however make a huge leap from these temptations to suggest that these wicked TV chefs are affecting our food preparation habits (again without any evidence) and that they are, as a result:

...a likely hidden contributing factor to Britain’s obesity epidemic and its associated public health issues. 

Again we see the loaded words of public health - using epidemic to describe rising rates of obesity is bad in a newspaper article but, in a scientific paper such misuse is inexcusable. Even if obesity rates are rising (and they aren't) it will never be an epidemic because getting fat isn't contagious - I won't catch obesity off you, not even a little bit. And "hidden contributing factor", which I assume means "we haven't got any evidence to support this statement so we'll say it's hidden".

The profile of obesity suggests that Dr Costa and his colleagues are talking nonsense. Obesity is disproportionately an issue for women from lower social classes and middle-aged men. At a guess these aren't the front of the house when Jamie scooters round Italy or the Hairy Bikers talk about vegetables. I may be wrong, of course, but my contention has precisely the same amount of scientific value as Dr Costa's - essentially none.

All this is a reminder that much of 'dietetics' is simply fancy calorie counting based on a set of willfully misrepresented half-truths about salt, sugar and fat. Obesity is a consequence of eating too much and exercising too little and has precisely nothing at all to do with the recipes presented by Lorraine or Antonio on our tellies.

....