不列顛的胖子們：是時(shí)候關(guān)心一下你們的腰圍了！

By+Prue+Leith

肥胖問題已經(jīng)成為了影響現(xiàn)代人生活質(zhì)量的一大頑疾，并且我們也在被一個(gè)悖論所困擾：我們雖然吃得比前人少，卻比前人胖得多。解決肥胖問題的關(guān)鍵在于引導(dǎo)大眾從小養(yǎng)成良好的生活和飲食習(xí)慣。為了年輕一代的健康成長，政府、學(xué)校和家長都責(zé)無旁貸。

The UK is sixth in the supersize race of OECD2 countries， with a quarter of the population obese. The fact that six of the fattest nations （the US， Australia， New Zealand， Canada， Ireland and the UK） are English-speaking should tell us something about our food culture. But sadly even Japan and South Korea， the slimmest nations， are fattening up fast on burgers and chips.

What is to be done？ No country is going to have the courage to ban junk food. Maybe well come to that one day. We all know the NHS spends billions on diet-related illnesses， but did you know the fastest-growing surgical procedure in British hospitals is amputations， of which about half are due to diabetes？3 Can we afford the luxury of obesity？ Seriously overweight people are generally less productive and consequently contribute less to the taxman4. As important as the drain on the countrys coffers is the sad fact that they are，5 on average， unhappier and shorter-lived than slim people.

There is a horrible conundrum6 here. You could argue that obesity actually saves us money， because if we all stayed healthy wed live longer and cost the country more in pensions7 and old-age care. But even if that is true， we should be trying to ensure long and healthy lives， not short， out-of-breath8 ones. So what to do？ Almost everyone has an answer： more exercise； more cooking in schools； more food education； better labelling； higher taxes for unhealthy foods； subsidies for healthy ones； manufacturers obliged to lower sugar，9 fat or salt levels； free school meals； massive public health campaign.

A lot of rot is spoken about our guzzling vastly more than we did a generation or two ago.10 In fact， overall， were eating less： in the 1950s the average Brit ate 100 calories more per day than we do now. But back then， just 5 per cent of Britons were overweight. That has now gone up to 63 per cent. This is the obesity paradox： were eating less as a fat nation than we did as a slim one.11

Theres no mystery behind why people get fat. Consume more calories than you burn， and you put on weight. But our lifestyles have changed： when work meant heaving a load of hay or a barrow load of bricks， when “play” meant climbing a tree or playing sport， when people walked or biked to work and school， and women were down on their knees scrubbing the floor，12 the nation could consume more calories. The combination of moving more and fighting the cold （keeping warm burns calories faster than running） kept our forebears13 slim. Our food intake has been falling， but nowhere near fast enough to compensate for centrally heated houses and a sedentary lifestyle.14 Hence the obesity epidemic15.endprint

We arent going to go back to manual16 labour， no cars and unheated houses， so what to do？ Our only hope is the next generation. And there we need to do everything we can. Since the responsibility cannot be left to parents， we should start with schools. I used to think if we could teach just one generation of children to eat better， wed have done it. They would grow up with a preference for a healthy lifestyle， theyd indoctrinate their children and voilà！17 Problem solved.

But I hadnt reckoned on the power of the contra-forces： the massive influence of food manufacturers with their genius for peddling the most delicious combinations of fat， sugar and salt； the rise of snacking culture and time spent on screens rather than knees-under-table meals； the lure of a nice warm sofa rather than a run in the rain； the competing pressures on curriculum time in schools， and the parsimony of governments with other priorities.18

Ive been banging away19 for 40 years about the dangers of not eating properly， and Ive seen excellent efforts made by schools and charities. But it is clear that unless the campaigning and the incentives are kept up， a lot of backsliding will go on.20

The best example of a government serious about health is probably Finland. They grasped21 that the problem was lack of activity， as well as diet. So councils were doing their best to remove obstacles to exercise， providing “gym parks”， clearing snowy paths and providing free shoeclamps to make walking in winter possible for the elderly， organising hiking trips for children to collect lingonberries in the forests， subsidising fresh fruit and veg in shops， and taxing the fattening stuff.22 They were rightly proud of their efforts in schools. The central planks23 of the Finnish policy are free school meals for everyone， and teaching children to eat as part of the curriculum. Lunchtime is a class， though it is expected to deliver its lessons in a relaxing and pleasurable atmosphere. School restaurants （not “canteens”， you notice） are light， airy24 and nice places to be. The food is cooked from scratch in batches so it arrives fresh on the counter.25

Mealtimes were staggered to eliminate queues， with the children serving themselves， taking as little or as much as they liked， and eating it all.26 No pudding. They had milk or water to drink. Every child did a weeks work experience in the kitchen， and took turns in laying the table and clearing up.

There was no choice （other than for special diets）， but the menu changed daily， on a six-to-eight-week cycle. The arguments for a nochoice but changing menu are logical： children are very conservative27—given a choice theyll eat what they know they like. British school caterers often boast about the variety they offer，28 but they fail to mention that the majority of children eat pizza every day. If there is no choice， and the culture is to eat what you are given， a hesitant child will at least give it a go.endprint