First up, the recommended diet, from page five of their report.
I like that they have a 31 gram ration of sweets.*
Anyway, Chris does his best. But it doesn't look all that appealing.
Here's breakfast: And lunch[WATCH] The IEA's very own health warrior @CJSnowdon decided to try the @TheLancet's delicious nutrition guidelines for breakfast this morning! 🥓🍳 pic.twitter.com/0zJhqQTs6T— IEA (@iealondon) January 17, 2019
And, finally, dinner for a hungry Chris.[WATCH] Part 2 of the IEA's @CJSnowdon following @TheLancet's nutrition guidelines. Doesn't that beef sandwich look like the stuff that dreams are made of? 🥪https://t.co/h9cdxIgoUx pic.twitter.com/ncsEuMAAgp— IEA (@iealondon) January 17, 2019
[WATCH] Part 3 of @cjsnowdon following @TheLancet diet. 🍗— IEA (@iealondon) January 17, 2019
Not a fan of the diet yourself? "You don’t need to worry about choice or personal responsibility. They’re gonna use a system of taxes and bans... to make sure you don't really have much choice!"https://t.co/h9cdxIgoUx pic.twitter.com/Sscnswc5aQ
As Chris points out, it's nice that this crowd has outlined an end-goal for once rather than the series of nibbles that always otherwise come with denials that there's a next step just around the corner. The report recommends measures like zoning bans on unhealthy food outlets, taxes and subsidies, reduced choice, reduced portions - and some non-daft things like finally getting water and effluent pricing right. But they have the whole thing back-to-front.
Food choices shouldn't be targets. They should be the outcomes that emerge when distortionary subsidies are removed and when environmental effects are properly worked into prices. I'd be surprised if models that appropriately incorporated full environmental costs didn't result in changes in those choices. But you don't force it by nudges and shoves to get particular menus; you just make sure that prices incorporate costs properly and let people make whatever choices they want within that.
* We can thank them for increasing the chocolate ration from 20 grammes to 30.
Am I right in thinking that the recommendation is 7g of protein from pork, not 7g of pork?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like it's total weight of pork, not protein embodied in that portion. But I could be wrong - it isn't very clear. The footnote there just says you can substitute among the different meats. It would be a bit odd for a purported menu to make the user work out the mass allowed to get the allotted protein contribution though.
Delete