The Promised Land

After years of inertia, a prominent representative group of the medical profession has today called for taxation on fizzy drinks. What has taken them so long? This announcement comes a couple of days following the assertion by the head of Iceland frozen food that local authorities are to blame for the current headlines relating to horse meat in beef. What interesting times we live in.

In my childhood of the early 1970s, fizzy drinks were not new. They were reserved as a treat for special occasions though. Commonplace everyday items they were not. I recall speaking to an expert in the field of osteoporosis about twelve years ago and he was unequivocal regarding fizzy drinks. He felt they should be taxed like alcohol and reserved for the over 18s in the same way. He explained to me that the evidence was overwhelming regarding their erosive capacity on teeth, bone and stomach linings. It was because bone formation is not yet complete in children that he felt so strongly about reserving their availability to the over 18s. In particular he cited the content of phosphoric acid in fizzy drinks as being the biggest danger. I don't know if they still provide the lesson at primary school, but at my school we were asked to bring in the dirtiest coins we had. The teacher produced a can of coke and poured it into a glass. The coins were put in and we all returned the following morning to witness the result. You've never seen cleaner coins in your life - they looked as though they'd just been dispatched from the Royal Mint. The lesson was simple and effective. If coke can do this to a dirty metal coin, think what it can do to you when you drink it. It certainly left a lasting impression on me. That aside, the obscene levels of sugar in many such drinks is little short of criminal. There is strong evidence that regular consumption of these drinks contributes to diabetes due to cumulative insulin resistance and osteoporosis presenting at younger ages due to bone erosion. I don't hear too many dentists calling for increased taxation though.

The comments of Malcolm Walker are somewhat surprising. He made his money by building up the Iceland empire and then selling it at great profit. He waited patiently on the sidelines while the new owners orchestrated its demise and re-purchased it a couple of years ago. He is a shrewd businessman and has a proven track record of how to make money. I was formerly a sales manager on the whole sale side of the fence and know a thing or two about the food industry. Principally, the entire industry is driven by human greed. This has seldom been difficult to exploit and some players such as Mr Walker have been very successful at this. He is just an entrepreneur seeking to capitalise on the market in front of him. Furthermore, he can only operate within the rules and regulations imposed upon him. The point I make here is a much wider one. All players within the food market both retail and wholesale only thrive if they supply what the public want. Want, not need. If they supplied the public need, the vast majority of them would have ceased trading long since. To fully appreciate this, it is instructive to compare the habits of the average consumer after the second world war with his ancestor of today. The biggest difference is choice. After the war, they ate what was available and were grateful for that because rationing continued until well into the 1950s. Thus, meat and two vegetables was the aspiration rather than the norm for many. Tea and coffee, rationed of course, and milk, if you had any left, were the main alternatives to water. A fizzy drink was a luxury whose place was well down the list. Alcohol was drunk, if at all, in the social setting of a pub where the men would drink half pints of beer and the women something equally modest. Alcohol could not be sought cheaply unless you brewed your own which many did because they had to. The working lives of the majority were such that they didn't have the time to drink too much alcohol and couldn't really afford to anyway. Given that many would have witnessed things the like of which we can barely guess at during the war, I would argue that they could have been forgiven for seeking solace through alcohol. The majority though just got on with rebuilding their battered lives. Children would drink water from the tap or milk if available although that was still rationed of course in common with other dairy products such as butter and cheese. Obesity in those days must have been something of an achievement.

During my sales career, various companies would supply large institutions such as the hospitals, prisons and schools. I can assure anyone that food quality did not head the priority list of the food purchasers. The age old saying that "you get what you pay for" is as true today as ever it was. When I was involved with supplying prisons, they worked on a budget of a pound per day to feed a prisoner. This was only about ten years ago. The budget for feeding a patient in a hospital was not radically different. All hospitals bought their meat and vegetables frozen - not fresh. Likewise the schools and colleges. When I am on the wards today in my existing role as a medical student, I often see as much food being returned to the kitchens as left them. The proof of the pudding...

It is said within the health service that the one of the best career paths to pursue as a doctor with little fear of job cuts is in hepatology. Cases of liver disease continue to grow alarmingly year on year with the age of those affected becoming younger and younger. If hepatology isn't up your street, you could pursue a career in diabetes with similarly shocking statistics. For the little that I know, I would candidly suggest to government that they have much to do ease the financial burden on the NHS. The second largest employer in the world it might be, but it is certainly far from being the best run.

So I think the assertion of Mr Walker is partly correct. Given that local government remains the arbiter of how public money is spent on such institutions, I agree that they are culpable in all of this. Fresh meat and vegetables ought to be the standard with frozen food being employed as a back up in an emergency. That said, I do marvel at the arrogance of Mr. Walker. Can he really look any of us in the eye with complete assurance and claim that his company has not retailed horse at some stage during his tenure? I somehow doubt that very much but would stand corrected if he were able to prove otherwise. As a prolific retailer of frozen and convenience food, he is every bit as guilty of contributing to detrimental health as those found to be selling horse meat. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone Mr. Walker! I suggest he would do well to keep his own house in order first before casting aspersions upon those around him.

When Harold Macmillan claimed in 1957 that "you've never had it so good", I suggest he was well ahead of his time. The diet of the average Brit at that time was infinitely superior to that of our generation if only from the standpoint of our health. We grew more and wasted less. Now we grow less and waste more. Its not too difficult to see the difference really. People are living longer not because they are healthier but rather because medical science has become more adept at treating them and keeping them alive for longer - there is a difference.With the notable exception of smoking, people were far more healthy after the war. The NHS is creaking at the seams under the strain of ever increasing patient numbers amid ever decreasing staff morale. This combination does not augur well for its future. In fact, it is hard to see how it can continue with its current "free at the point of delivery" ethos. As the song goes, "something's got to give".

The first and second world wars were fought with a promise of freedom for the civilised world at a cost of millions of human lives. Well, we have freedom but are we any better for it? Would it be too radical to suggest that local government scale down the numbers in its employ in order to provide fresh food for our public institutions? The problem is that when an empire becomes too big it also assumes power and true to human nature becomes loath to relinquish it. Horse meat? I would suggest that this is the least of our problems!