Reply With QuoteI couldn't quite believe what I was reading. Education is what is needed, I think this is an insult to 'poorer' families. Am I right in thinking that it is the group in society that have the greatest disease rates?
Have you seen this in the national newspapers?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7428121.html
I couldn't quite believe what I was reading. Education is what is needed, I think this is an insult to 'poorer' families. Am I right in thinking that it is the group in society that have the greatest disease rates?
This has to be a wind up!
I saw that! Basic fruit and veg, like apples and carrots, cabbage, bananas, peas, oranges, onions, potatoes etc are cheap to buy and are very filling.
I agree with John B, education is needed, people don't know how to prepare vegetables to maximise food intake.
I thought it was a wind up too, or the tabloids doing their thing!
If this is true, I think it is very sad. We live in a world of processed, plastic food that offers no nutrients. Education is key, carrot and swede mash, with potatoes and peas that's four veg and cheap.
This is laughable. Who are these poorer families? I can understand if the article commented about a product people don't have to buy.
But people have to eat, so why are they not choosing to spend their money on fruits and vegetables rather than processed food? I also have to question what do poorer families eat? Crisps, pop, cakes, biscuits? I know this sounds stereotypical and I'd like to think that this isn't the case, but I don't see how it is not possible to fit in 5 portions of fruit and veg a day.
Kelly James,
That's a sweeping statement!
You presume that poor people eat crisps, cake and general junk!
Vegetables can be expensive and fruit is not a cheap option, when you have a tight budget and a family to feed you have to cut your cloth accordingly. The article doesn't say people don't eat fruit and veg, it says people can't reach the target of five a day.
I realise that was a sweeping statement, but could it not be argued that suggesting poorer families can afford five fruit and veg a day is also a sweeping statement?
Like most people we choose to purchase some itwms at the expense of others. I don't see why that concept should be any different for poorer families.
Just because poorer families can't afford 5-a-day, is there any reason why the message still shouldn't be given?
How can they say the 5-a-day is an unrealistic target? And that it demoralises people.
The target is presumably there based on scientific recommendations for health, to change the target because it may be demoralising laughs in the face of the research! It's a joke!
As for demoralising, there are many things in life that we can't obtain for one reason or another, is it fair to get rid of them?
This country has become a nanny state, making people stupid.
Posting Permissions
