Nanny feels that she has done her best to try to persuade us to change our lifestyles, yet we seem to be ignoring her. This inattention to her lectures really annoys her.
Well, Nanny is fed up with being ignored, she does “know best”; and has decided that action will be taken.
One of her special friends, Dr Rachel Davey of Staffordshire University, has been thinking about the problem; and has presented Nanny with a special paper that makes a few radical proposals.
Davey’s paper correctly identifies that the more we eat, and the less that we do, the more weight we will gain.
No problems with her most excellent analysis so far.
Now here is where it becomes a little more worrying; she says that when we are confronted with food we are weak willed, and that we will not voluntarily change our habits.
Oh to have Nanny’s moral backbone!
However, do not despair, this is where Nanny will help us.
Dr Davey, who views our current eating habits as “insidious” and likes to use the word "enforce" (let’s not mince words here doctor), proposes a number of “helpful” measures designed to make us fit Nanny’s ideal:
- She proposes taxing certain food items, that Nanny dislikes, much like tobacco and drink are taxed
- She proposes that the advertising of certain food stuff be controlled; in the same way that tobacco and drink advertising is controlled
- She proposes, and this is the real killer, that certain foodstuffs be rationed; just like they were in the war!
“..It is not inconceivable that some form of food rationing and portion size control may be required in future if the dramatic rise in obesity continues. This could be done via supermarkets since most of the food we consume in the home is purchased at a relatively small number of food outlets. Obesity is virtually impossible to treat by conventional methods so efforts need to be directed towards prevention. To change social attitudes and challenge social norms, governments must implement radical policy changes which will enforce an environment in which food production, marketing and consumption are controlled…”
During the last war, the British government rationed food via a points system. Everyone was allocated 16 points a month, which they could “spend” on food of their choice. Once the points were used up, they could buy no more.
Dr Davey argues that people were fitter and healthier then; therefore it is the right solution for the “obesity” war that Nanny is fighting on our behalf.
Dare I inject a note of reality into Nanny’s view of history here?
- Rationing was introduced because Britain was at war, people had no choice but to live in this manner; the country was facing starvation, as the U boats cut our supply lines.
- The war lasted 1939-45, rationing persisted until the 1950’s; by which time people were heartily sick of it. The then labour government had to abolish it, or face a mini “revolution”. Oddly enough people don’t like being restricted in their choices, when there is no war to fight.
- During rationing there was a thriving “black market”. Nanny’s attempt to introduce rationing will merely produce the same result. An affluent criminal element in society, which will control the supply of burgers and chips.
Please submit your bids to firstname.lastname@example.org, marking them "I love lard".
As ever, with Nanny’s “solutions” to problems, she has not thought through the consequences of her actions; and blatantly disregards the right of people to choose how they wish to live their lives.