Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To suggest that enforced national food rationing might help solve the nation's obesity problem?

350 replies

Lucia39 · 30/05/2009 00:13

During the period 1939-1954 the nation's diet was, apparently, the healthiest it has ever been.

So would a similar regime assist helping those who are increasingly "dimensionally challenged"?

Vegetables, fruit, and pulses would be more freely available but meat, dairy produce, sugar and fats would be strictly rationed.

Any thoughts?

OP posts:
HolyGuacamole · 30/05/2009 12:22

I like the idea of a national bedtime....however, it would seriously impede my MNing and I don't know if I am ready for that

Thunderduck · 30/05/2009 12:22

I'm very pro vaccination, but I'd be as strongly against the government forcing parents to have their children vaccinated as I would be if the government introduced a rationing system.

Longtalljosie · 30/05/2009 12:25

Lucia, seriously - get a life. If you keep banging on about weight like this, you're just going to sound obsessed. Rationing when there's no need to is the action of a dictatorship. There are plenty of those around the world if you fancy giving one a go.

Yes, obesity is a public purse issue. So are benefit-dependency, smoking, alcoholism, terrorism, any other criminality you care to mention, drug dependency and working cash in hand. Couldn't you get aerated about one of those instead?

Thunderduck · 30/05/2009 12:26

And I'm even more strongly against national bedtime.

I'm a nightowl and don't need a lot of sleep. I don't like to go to bed until around 2-3am.

noddyholder · 30/05/2009 13:30

I think it is a bit police state tbh.But would love to see seasonal natural produce at reasonable prices and packet foods and ready meals taxed to high heaven

TitsalinaBumsquash · 30/05/2009 13:43

OP your a nutter, what the hell has it got to do with you what people eat? Were already turning into a "nanny state" the last thing we need is to be told what to eat, IMO what would help is if food manufacturers (sp?) stopped making cheap processed crap and lowered the prices of good healthy meat/fruit/veg i.e good food! We also need proper cooking and nutritional lessons in schools and have them availiable to new parents.

elvislives · 30/05/2009 13:47

My father spent his formative years with rationing (aged 6 in 1939). I am convinced it was the bread-and-dripping he seems to have lived on as a child that contributed to his angina and early death in 1996

annoyingdevil · 30/05/2009 13:51

Trouble is, every study has shown, that if people are deprived of food, they just desire it even more. I personally believe that the diet industry is actually fuelling the obesity crisis.

FairLadyRantALot · 30/05/2009 13:57

well, also, we can't forget the responsibility of the manufacturers that prupusefully make food addictive....and put things in to crave it more and stuff

sarah293 · 30/05/2009 13:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Longtalljosie · 30/05/2009 14:17

DD1 still in utero so haven't managed to destroy her body image yet(!) But the one thing I do think is my parents did a sterling job when it came to attitudes towards food. Weight wasn't mentioned once. I was told "you'll ruin your dinner", or "that'll rot your teeth", "have an apple instead" or "if you're that hungry, there's always bread and butter". But weight never seemed to come into it at all. I was told it was important to be fit in order to be healthy. But again, that was a health thing, nothing to do with weight or body image or anything like that.

Lucia39 · 30/05/2009 14:20

edam Quote [" Lucia - I am telling you what my godmother, who actually lived through it, experienced during WW2. You weren't there, so don't try to pretend you know better than her."] End quote.

You are relying on another person's memories [albeit very valuable ones]. My parents were in their early twenties when the war started and two of my older siblings spent their formative years during the latter period of rationing. So, like you, I have also heard the personal anecdotes of those who lived through this period.

Edam Quote ["She used the word 'starving' about rationing, as I said, not 1939. People were bloody hungry during rationing - not starving to death, obviously, but starving as in very, very hungry and never having enough protein in their diets (unless you were buying stuff on the black).] End quote.

No you didn't and just so you can't accuse me of putting words into your mouth here is what you actually wrote.

By edam Sat 30-May-09 00:25:14 "The nation was very far from 'the healthiest it has ever been'. At the outbreak of war, the Government discovered a horrifying proportion of men were ineligible for active service, thanks to grinding poverty and no healthcare.Rationing was NOT 'a good thing' to protect people's health. It was desperation. My godmother was a young mother with a baby, living in a town. Young women like her, who couldn't work, were starving. Literally"] End quote.

Given that rationing was introduced in 1939 to what period of time were you referring? I can only respond to what you wrote, and as, previously, you had made reference to the "outbreak of the war" it followed that your statement about your godmother's experience dated from that period [i.e. 1939].

You also stated that there was "no healthcare", this is incorrect. By 1939 the number of persons insured under the National Health Act was 17,119,000 [a 2.1% increase on 1937] and an additional 717,000 young people aged between the ages of 14-16 became entitled to medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Act (Juvenile Contributors and Young Persons) Act 1937 that was introduced in 1938. So whilst the provision was very limited by today's standards, it did exist. As for your having "read the Beveridge report" what purpose was there in making this statement? Or was it a false argument tactic - i.e. an appeal to personal status?

Edam Quote ["Btw, there were no workhouses during WW2, they were abolished in 1930."] End quote.

Fair enough, let's set the record absolutely straight shall we? The Local Government Act of 1929 abolished the workhouse in its earlier incarnation. This included the removal of the Boards of Guardians and the handing of responsibility for these institutions [and general public assistance to the poor and chronically sick] to county and borough councils. The workhouses became public assistance institutions. However, whilst those in charge of these establishments may have changed the institutions themselves, and the public assistance programme of which they were a part, continued and despite the change in responsibility and name these places still provided some [very limited] relief to those in want, mainly caring for the old, the mentally deficient, unmarried mothers and vagrants. However, the stigma of these places being the "workhouse" remained amongst the poor.

[as an aside: I suppose it's rather like Windscale and Sellafield. The name may have changed but it's still a nuclear power station that is prone to the occasional radioactive leak!]

Edam Quote ["You are arguing FOR rationing, I'm telling you what it was actually like."]

Please read what I originally posted! I made a suggestion that rationing might help alleviate the nation's weight problem!

I should also point out that, contrary to your emphatic statement "telling" everyone what it was like you actually have no personal experience of that period. Like myself with my relatives, you are relying on the memories of others and that is not the same thing as being an eyewitness to those events. My parents' and my older siblings also have personal experiences of this period but that does not presuppose that what happened to them was reflected in precisely the same way across the entire nation. We cannot make generalised assumptions about a historical period based solely on selected instances and opinions. However, a recorded compilation of these, as held in the Mass Observation archive, provides valuable insights into what individuals were experiencing and thinking during this particular period in British history.

OP posts:
Lizzylou · 30/05/2009 14:27

Lucia, no I don't think we should have enforced food rationing.

I do think that we should have greater eduication on what constitutes a healthy diet, more allotments made easily available for those without a garden and cheaper (free? subsidised?) exercise facilities.

Now, I have used my grey matter today can I go and drink wine in the sun with my girlfriends now?

noddyholder · 30/05/2009 14:30

Lucia it is not going to be easy to get people to agree with this as it really makes you look at your diet if you have another way of eating enforced.For example if you eat loads of processed crap you would be up in arms whereas if you eat a sensible balanced diet the sacrifices wouldn't be as huge.There is no doubt obesity is a problem and some of the foods on the supermarket shelf should be banned.The further away something looks from its original form the worse it is ime.I mean chicken nuggets and smileys bear little resemblance to a chicken or a potato.If these things weren't there it would take that choice of eating crap away!Some of the things in the freezer section are shocking turkey dinosaurs !!!!!!!

brightongirldownunder · 30/05/2009 14:41

Lucia, you are obsessed with eating and food. I think you need to ask yourself why. Its a bit odd.
Or do you just want to be Billy no mates?

Lucia39 · 30/05/2009 14:46

Firstly, let us be quite clear that I am not advocating rationing. I am suggesting that it might be a way of tackling the ever-increasing problem of obesity. Now I've made myself quite clear I shall address your comments.

Niecie Quote ["You miss the point - the availability and cost were issues back in 1939. They aren't now, not in such immediate way anyway. Back then food simply wasn't getting through and there was not the manpower to produce more in this country (with a large part of the workforce in the forces)."] End quote.

As to your comments about food not "getting through" a large percentage of imported goods was indeed lost at sea. However, in order to deal with these losses the British Government introduced certain policies to help the country to feed itself, for example the "Dig for Victory" campaign which was implemented from the commencement of the war. This encouraged the utilisation of every spare piece of ground, including ornamental parks and gardens and created additional allotments for people to use. In agriculture the Women's Land Army replaced those farm labourers who had joined up. Rationing was introduced whereby each householder registered with their local shops which were then supplied with goods based on the number of customers they had on their books. That is the historical context.

Niecie Quote ["I was asking how you would instigate a rationing system now, not in 20 or 30 years time when it might (or might not) become necessary for practical reasons" End quote.

Given that the wording of this thread's title and its OP was purely a suggestion I am not planning to instigate anything. However, in this hypothetical scenario under discussion and supposing such a scheme was ever adopted, similar techniques to those used during WW2 could, perhaps, be employed. This would necessitate people being required to register at either their local shops or at a nearby supermarket. Individuals would then have to make the choice as to which of the large retailers they would utilise. I suppose that if such a scheme was ever adopted the Government of the day could, if it wished, legally exert control over the supermarkets!

Niecie Quote ["What are you going to base your rationing system on?"] End quote.

I repeat I'm not going to do anything. I am merely suggesting what may take place in a hypothetical situation, but to answer your question, the calorific requirements of each individual would be assessed. Hence certain groups of people would be entitled to specific additional rations while those with dietary problems would likewise be accommodated.

I repeat, yet again, just in case anyone's forgotten, that this thread was merely a suggestion. I was simply proposing a possible way of combating the excessive consumption of unnecessary food substances now being actively promoted by food manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers.

Regarding your comment that availability and costs are not so much of an issue, in point of fact they are still very much an issue. The crux of the matter is that the large supermarkets now have a stranglehold on agriculture and farming in both Britain, and in many other parts of the world, because they are the main wholesale purchasers of the goods. This has resulted in many British farmers often being compelled to sell products to supermarkets at below cost price, or as is the case in many developing countries, produce cash crops for export rather than grow food for their own populations. Thus we often have a ridiculous scenario where countries are being given Aid from the West while farmers in those same countries export cash crops to fill European/US supermarket shelves.

Therefore as populations around the world increase, as water resources dwindle, and as climate change affects agricultural production the availability and costs will inevitably impact on the western consumer. Food is relatively cheap in the UK at the moment because three or four very large and economically very powerful firms are holding those prices down. You may find this of interest www.vero.org.uk/press12.asp.

Now to your second post.

Niecie Quote["I would also dispute the idea that diet was healthier in the rationing years."] End quote.

You are free to dispute it but the evidence would be against you. The work of Boyd Orr in the 1920s & 30s led to him being actively involved in the planning for wartime rationing and he placed particular emphasis on ensuring women and children had extra milk. The wartime diet also moved away from a heavier emphasis on meat towards grains and vegetables. This took time and for the first two years the Government was reluctant to implement these changes in agricultural production until its own scientific advisors pointed out that letting humans consume the grain directly was more economical and ten times more efficient than feeding it to cattle and then feeding the cattle to the humans.

As a result of a fairer and more equitable distribution of resources many people were probably better fed during food rationing than before the war began www.nutrition.org.uk/home.asp?siteId=43&sectionId=440.

Niecie Quote ["Surely you are aware that fruit and veg were also rationed and that if you were an urban dweller they would undoubtedly been in very short supply."] End quote

From early 1940 meat, butter and sugar were rationed and later other foodstuffs, including tea, were added. As the war progressed, and given the privations suffered at particular times, entitlement to these goods varied. However, contrary to your misinformed comment vegetables fruit, bread, potatoes, and fish were never rationed during hostilities, although again, given the problems encountered during the war, the choice and availability of fish, fruit and vegetables could, at times, be limited or even non existent.

Niecie Quote ["Coupled with this, the rationing idea may work to reduce our food intake but it does nothing to replicate the other wartime conditions - people did a lot more exercise back then. If they had to go anywhere they walked, cycled or took public transport."] End quote.

That is correct but then I've never advocated we do replicate them.

Purely as a point of interest might I enquire how travelling on public transport increases one's level of exercise? One is still sedentary. The only additional exercise that will arise is the walk to and from the station or bus stop.

Niecie Quote ["Are you planning to ban us from driving for large parts of the week too?"] End quote.

Again, I repeat, just in case it has slipped anyone's memory, I'm not planning to do anything but would it be such a bad idea if people actually walked a little more? Of course during WW2 petrol, like food, was also rationed.

Niecie Quote ["Rationing might serve to make us skinnier but it won't necessarily make us fitter."] End quote

Perhaps you'd care to define what you mean by "skinnier" and "fitter"? It is certainly widely recognised that a diet that places a heavy emphasis on fruit, vegetables, and grains with a modest intake of sugar, fats, and meat is far healthier. By the end of WW2 just such a diet was commonplace for the majority of the inhabitants of Britain.

Of course after 1945 things actually got worse and bread was put on ration between 1946 and 1949. The process of de-rationing was slow and it didn't completely end until 1954. However, the advantages, particularly to the generation of children born during or just after the end of the war, were clearly evident.

To investigate the nutritional status of the population of the UK during the Second World War, nutritional surveys were commissioned in 1941. These included surveys of two groups of pregnant women: the first comprised 120 working-class women who were studied in the spring of 1942, and a second group of 253 women in 1944. Both groups were followed up until after delivery and detailed biochemical assessments were performed on each subject. The statistical analysis of the haematological data showed that nearly 25% of women from the 1942 group were deficient in protein, over 60% were deficient in Fe and vitamin A, and over 70% had severe vitamin C deficiency. The findings were reported to the Ministries of Health and Food who instigated a food supplementation policy at the end of 1942 that entitled pregnant women in the UK to extra rations of fruit, dairy produce and to a supply of cod-liver-oil tablets. A second group of 253 pregnant women were studied 15 months later which enabled the effects of this programme to be investigated.

The resultant findings of this study continued to exert an influence over government food policy for pregnant women until the abolition of rationing in 1954.

OP posts:
Lucia39 · 30/05/2009 14:49

noddyholder: I quite agree with both your posts. However, this thread was only a suggestion and I'm not advocating a regime that includes the food police!

OP posts:
MachuPicchu · 30/05/2009 15:20

Well Lucia your suggestion is a poor one.

Far better to enable healthier lifestyles than to prohibit unhealthy options. How about free bicycles, sports centres, well-equipped youth clubs run by people who are paid a decent amount for their hard work etc. Make it easier, cheaper and more convenient for people to practise some form of exercise regularly. Restricting things that are pretty widely available (more so than during the war and afterwards when certain things were almost impossible to get hold of anyway) would risk creating some kind of black-market underground thing.

Of course people need to eat more healthily and do more exercise, but if anything is going to be done about it it should be in a way that encourages the healthy behaviour rather than restricts the unhealthy behaviour.

noddyholder · 30/05/2009 15:38

It is not because bikes are over priced though because a computer is a lot more expensive than a bike or a weekly trip swimming and most kids have them and sit on their backsides in front of them a fair bit!The mindset needs to change about health food and exercise.My mum never had to instruct us to get out and play in parks and ride bikes etc we just did it but there seems to be a whole section of society who think this is ok Where did this idea come from?And why do kids like it so much?It seems so solitary and boring

ScarlettCrossbones · 30/05/2009 15:41

Lucia, I can't believe how seriously some people are taking this thread and how vicious the responses are. It sounds like you've maybe posted some controversial topics before, but I'm relatively new to MN so haven't seen them. Looks like people are just jumping down your throat based on your reputation, possibly?

It's a whimsical idea and you know as well as I do that it just wouldn't work in practice, but it sure as hell would make the death rate from heart disease and strokes plummet.

YANBU to suggest it.

Gorionine · 30/05/2009 15:48

Surprise surprise, Lucia again. Let me tell you something I have never said on Mn before.
LUCIA39 YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Oh God that felt good!

noddyholder · 30/05/2009 16:17

there is no need to be personally insulting just because you have a dofferent opinion!There is too much of that on here these days

TarkaLiotta · 30/05/2009 16:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Gorionine · 30/05/2009 16:29

What is insulting is not to say things in people'sface, it is to create thread after thread pointing at people passing judgements on them because whatever they do if it is not the "Lucia way" it is the wrong way: you are fat it is your fault, your children are not very good with food it is your fault. She is not calling people she adresses to Idiots like I did but she means exactly the same but I am sure will not admit to it soon though!

I am tired of people having to justifie their hard times just becase SHE thinks it is good fun to start threads of the sort. Not only is it not funny but it does not allow for discussion as everything in her view is always so clear cut. IMHO,RL is not black and white. Just throwing "suggestions" arround does not make people reflect on why things are the way they are, they just make them (me) defensive and yes, rude for once in my life!

Starbear · 30/05/2009 16:35

Too much too read on a hot day instead of having fun outside. I'm taking a short break from gardening. I would love rationing as I have so little will power. I do need to be able to have a little chocolate every week for moral.