A little too much doom-mongering there, methinks.

That fewer people have dining rooms is hardly one of the signs of the apocalypse, heralding in the end of society as we know it. Besides, just because there isn't a specific walled-in room called the "dining room" hardly precludes the end of sitting down at a table for dinner, after all.

We've always had an "open plan" living/dining room. The dining table and chairs are in one half, and the armchairs, sofa and TV is in the other. We still sit down for family meals, and do so every day, and have for as long as I can remember. I don't know why people don't - but it's not down to knocking the wall to the dining room through.

Just that the dining room as a separated and segmented room is a dying breed really means little. It isn't necessary to have a separate room just for eating in. And it certainly isn't the serious problem that seems to be suggested.

The Welsh national dish...

The supermarket chain ASDA have decided to have a trial period of selling halal meat - meat from animals which have not been stunned before their throats cut - in a single store, causing animal rights groups to condemn them.

What I find amusing is that one of these groups is Vegetarians International Voice for Animals - who are presumably against the killing for meat of all animals in every way. And this decision has mean tthat they have had to come out pretty much in support of the other way of killing for meat.

When it comes down to it, people will buy and eat the food that they want to buy and eat - be it meat, halal meat, vegetaran alternatives, or anything else. If a supermarket stocks the meat, that won't necessarilly mean that more animals are killed in that way. In fact, if a large supermarket did stock halal, it would give them a chance to reduce the inhumaness of the killing.

Source: The Telegraph

Well, that's what they are saying. Along with eating red meat [so they want you be a vegetarian], any extra salt intake, and drinking sugary drinks [which presumably includes fruit smoothies?].

Frankly, it's all a load of bollocks.

One report says "don't do (a)", another says "don't do (b), but do do (a)" and yet another says "don't do (c) but do do (b)". It is pretty much all contradictory in one way or another. Just think of it this way - if you don't die one way, you'll die another.

But my problem is less with these studies and more with the way they are presented. They are always portrayed as incontrovertible fact - if you drink alcohol and eat red meat, then you will get cancer is the message they give out, whether or it is actually intended. But, really, none of these make a difference. You could follow the guidelines to the letter and yet still get cancer, or not bother at all about it and never get it.

Whether or not they intend it, it is how it is reported and how people interpret it. I am extremely sceptical about all of these types of reports, especially since it has been revealed that the recommended alcohol limit was just a guess. The "findings" from these reports are of no use to the general public, especially announced like this.

The best way to live a healthy life is to take everything in moderation - except moderation itself, of course.

Organic fruit and veg is now "officially" better for you because they have

Yes, it might be better for you but, really, is organic possible in the long-term? To start with it has significantly lower yields, and thus takes up far more space and labour for the amount of food it produces. As the human race continues to expand, will it ever be possible to simply provide enough space for organic produce to be farmed to feed us all? Unlikely.

Also, with the extra cost of buying organic produce it simply isn't financially possible for many - if not most - to do it. Especially since the profit supermarkets make on organic produce - as much as 25% on some products. Having all fruit and veg as organic is impossible, physically as well as economically. "Standard" fruit and veg can give us all the vitamins and minerals we need - I for one have never knowingly eaten organic fruit and veg - so why pay extra?

Organic may be "better" but is it really better? I don't think so.

Source: The Times

How on earth did they reach this conclusion?

So they want more government control over us, now extending into our eating and exercise habits - despite admitting that they have absolutely no clue how to do it?

Saying that the individual is not to blame for their own obesity is like saying that it's not waters fault it's wet. Only they can decide what they eat and how much they exercise. Yes there are some genetic signposts that make some more prone to obesity that others, but that is simply not a good enough excuse.

Likewise, you can't blame society. Just because lots of people are fat doesn't mean that it is why one particular person is. Being obese is, rightly, regarded as being a bad thing. How many obese celebrities are there?! In that world, it's the opposite which is the problem. Society does not deem your weight, size or body-fat content. Only the individual can through eating and exercising appropriately.

The only person to blame for obesity is the tub of lard themselves. They either eat too much, the wrong stuff, or don't exercise enough. No-one force-feeds them fast food. No-one ties them to the couch. The only person who is to blem for their condition is themselves - and to suggest otherwise is utterly wrong.

Also, even if it wasn't the individuals fault for their obesity, it still wouldn't be the job of Nanny State to come in and "take action". Espiecally when they have absolutely no idea what they could possibly do anyway - bar banning all bad food and enforcing exercise.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

I have never subscribed to the idea of eating "diet" varieties of food. I have never seen the point. Just either eat less or exercise more. There is now evidence that for children, "diet" foods could cause them to become obese:

"Diet foods for children may inadvertently lead to overeating and obesity, say researchers.
In tests on young rats, animals given low-calorie versions of foods were induced to overeat, whether they were lean or obese.
The researchers believe low-calorie versions of usually high-calorie foods disrupt the body's ability to use taste to regulate calorific intake...
Lead researcher Professor David Pierce said: "Based on what we've learned, it is better for children to eat healthy, well-balanced diets with sufficient calories for their daily activities rather than low-calorie snacks or meals."" (BBC)

It is pretty obvious in many ways that eating healthy balanced meals and exercising is better for children - and for adults. Whilst so-called "diet" alternatives have less calories than the standard foods, they often appear to have higher levels of salt or sugar instead - just as bad for you. It really is obvious that just replacing what you already eat with the "diet" variety is not going to help all that much. It is your lifestyle that needs to change more than anything else.

Children anyway shouldn't have any need to be fed "diet" foods. They should be actively playing enough to work off at least most of any surplus calories they ingest anyway. They shouldn't need to be fed "low calorie" snacks, and those that do need to should get up from in front of the TV and go out and run around outside.

Source: BBC

The White House has revealed what George W Bush and Gordon Brown have been eating during the latter's visit to Camp David:

"Gordon Brown has been given his "pudding" moment with the president...
After a main course of roast tenderloin of beef, mashed potatoes, sautéed green beans and peas with smoked bacon and mint, they enjoyed a dessert of, you guessed it, brownies with caramel and vanilla sauce...
The White House also revealed that today's lunch will be classic American fare - cheeseburgers, French fries and onion rings, followed by banana pudding." (BBC)

If you don't get the cheezburger joke, go here.

Eating beef [and presumably drinking milk] is killing the planet by causing global warming:

"Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours, it was claimed yesterday...
Taking into account all the processes involved... four average sized steaks generated greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 80.25lb of carbon dioxide.
This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy...
The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days.
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems...
But more than two thirds of the energy used goes towards producing and transporting cattle feed" (The Telegraph)

So it is eating meat and drinking milk which is killing the planet, not driving cars and running electrical appliances. But these are pretty much fixable problems. The methane that cows produce can be "halved" through feeding them garlic. And much of the other energy outputs could be cut by cattle feed being made close to the cows, and by buying local. The Vegetarian Society are of course jumping on this, saying:

"Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints, but one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat."

But I really don't think I'll be doing that. I like meat, and I will continue to eat meat - especially steak. Cooked medium-rare, it is absolutely gorgeous! Even if it is 'killing the planet'.

Source: The Telegraph