In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell tells us that ‘a millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t.’ The reason, he suggests, is that when you are ‘underfed, harassed, bored and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.’ It is depressing that this piece of social observation – first published in 1937 – still rings true almost 70 years later. Yet Orwell’s view also indicates that the current struggle to improve the British diet, particularly in lower socio-economic groups, is not simply a product of our times. Even before fast food outlets, multi-media advertising and the possibility of spending half one’s life in front of the television, the worst off members of society preferred the fleeting satisfaction of chips and chocolate to the more boring routine of a balanced diet. Perhaps, then, we should re-evaluate our starting point in the war on obesity.
Orwell’s mining families knew that there were healthier options available, but ‘would rather starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots.’ Today, too, most people realise that salads are better than burgers, but are equally reluctant to make the change. It is not the case that most people simply don’t mind being fat – now, as never before, we are constantly bombarded with images of beautiful, successful, rich and popular people who are also, almost without exception, thin. In other words, we generally want to become slimmer and have a fair idea of how to go about it, but we remain fat. And this is even more likely to be the case if we are poor. Why?
First, convenience and expense are significant factors. Fresh fish and vegetables, even if they are available locally, are likely to be more expensive and a great deal more difficult and time-consuming to prepare than frozen ready-meals. On one view, health foods have traditionally catered for the more affluent consumer, and have thus tended to fall towards the more expensive end of the market. Inevitably, this price difference has in turn put them out of reach for the poorest customers, and so a vicious cycle is perpetuated.
If government wishes to address this problem, then subsidising healthy produce could be a better plan than punitively taxing foods classified as ‘junk’. At the same time, marginal price differences may often be of secondary importance to the issue of convenience. Even if raw vegetables are more economical than burgers, it is still harder to know what to do with them. Practical education in schools is therefore of crucial importance – not just glossy posters making glib exhortations about ‘five portions a day’, but actually teaching young people how to produce quick and simple meals.
It is also critical that good food is made as tempting as bad food. To Orwell’s millionaire, fruit juice and wholemeal crackers were no doubt a culinary sacrifice that could be endured for the sake of better health in pursuing a generally pleasant life. The out-of-work miners, on the other hand, wanted food that could provide immediate stimulation and comfort. The central lifestyle choice must not be presented as, on the one hand, hot and tasty snacks and, on the other, cold salads. The message should be a more realistic one, focussing on balance and moderation. In high-street food outlets, too, there is huge scope for making wholesome food accessible and appealing. Too often, there is simply no healthy equivalent of McDonalds in the same price range and fulfilling the same desire for quick, reliably tempting food.
Perhaps what is needed to change the culture of fast food is a chain of calorie-conscious outlets that can match McDonalds, Burger King and KFC in terms of both ubiquity and appearance (large, bright and cheery restaurants rather than small, eccentric and faintly masochistic tofu merchants). Again, starting young is essential. There is no inherent reason that toddlers should prefer burgers and milkshakes to wholemeal sandwiches and low-fat yoghurt, provided they are brought up in an environment where these foods are equally available and familiar.
The same is true of exercise, that other pillar of a healthy lifestyle. In the present day, in my home town of Kirkintilloch, going to an affordable gym necessitates a return journey to the sports centre (in the next town) and still costs several pounds a visit. A large portion of fish and chips in front of the television costs less and may only involve walking a few hundred yards. Moreover, visiting the chip shop does not require trainers, a change of clothes or getting sweatily out of breath. Even as a layabout student, I find making the ‘healthy’ choice daunting. If I had to spend every day in a proper job, let alone manage a tight budget and bring up a family, I doubt that I would see much of the treadmill. Even knowing that I was making an unhealthy choice and condemning myself to being overweight or even obese, I’d reach for the chips every time.
Opportunities for exercise should therefore be creatively designed and aggressively marketed. Subsidised gyms should be more widely available, but so should less demanding forms of physical activity. Central and local government should create partnerships with other organisations offering, say, the use of school halls for informal team sports. There is also room to help extend the role of existing community networks, from churches to pubs, into the provision of physical activities. Why shouldn’t each CLP, for example, organise football matches or aerobics classes? We could have local activists with improved team spirit as well as greater stamina.
In short, dietary education, public information campaigns and junk food advertising bans – which may all be laudable ideas in themselves – will not solve the problem. The real solution, whether in pre-war Wigan or 21st century Kirkintilloch, lies in providing healthy alternatives that are both realistic and attractive. People are not inherently stupid and reckless when it comes to their health; they may not even be under-informed.
But we cannot expect them to swim against the tide of human nature in terms of convenience, cost and the desire for short-term gratification. Our modern challenge must therefore be to harness the influence of the state, dynamism of private enterprise and framework of existing community networks in providing options for healthy living that can compete with junk food and television on their own terms. Carrot, anyone?