评论
打印
Earlier this year, the need for a radical rethink of food policy in the UK was set out in Henry Dimbleby's National Food Strategy: The Plan, an independent review commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
今年早些时候，亨利-丁伯斯的《国家食品战略》中提出了对英国食品政策进行彻底反思的必要性。该计划是环境、食品和农村事务部（Defra）委托的一项独立审查。
Dimbleby, one of the founders of the Leon chain of cafes, wrote the report after consultations with more than 300 organisations, as well as town hall meetings with members of the public. It took three years to produce.
丁伯斯是莱昂连锁咖啡馆的创始人之一，在咨询了300多个组织以及与公众的市政厅会议后，他耗时三年撰写了这份报告。
Unlike all the earlier failed obesity policies, Dimblebys plan recognised that how a person eats is not just a question of personal choice, and that healthy food is a basic need for all of us, no matter how much we weigh.
与早先所有失败的肥胖政策不同，丁伯斯的计划认识到，一个人的饮食不仅仅是个人选择的问题，健康的食物是我们所有人的基本需求，无论我们的体重多少。
It called for a range of ambitious strategies themed around reducing diet inequalities, improving food education, making better use of land and, crucially, setting as a clear goal that the food system of the future must make us well instead of sick.
它呼吁制定一系列雄心勃勃的战略，围绕减少饮食不平等、改善食品教育、更好地利用土地，关键是将未来的食品系统必须以使我们健康而不是生病为明确目标。
It suggested that school inspections should pay as much attention to cookery and nutrition lessons as they do to English and maths, and that meat consumption should be cut by 30% over 10 years, with more investment going to growing vegetables and fruits.
它建议，学校检查应该像关注英语和数学教学一样关注烹饪和营养课，肉类消耗应该在10年内减少30%，并将更多投资用于种植蔬菜和水果。
Almost everyone I have spoken to in food policy and nutrition circles has showered Dimbleby's report with praise, relieved that someone close to government was finally recognising the scale of the problem and proposing real solutions.
几乎所有与我交谈过的食品政策和营养学界人士都对丁伯斯的报告大加赞赏，终于有与政府关系较近的人认识到问题的重要并提出真正的解决方案并对此感到欣慰。
Some public health experts, such as Rob Percival at the Soil Association, have been disappointed that the report still talks about foods high in sugar, fat and salt as the problem, rather than addressing the harm done by ultra-processed products as a whole.
一些公共卫生专家，如土壤协会的Rob Percival，对报告仍然把高糖、高脂肪和高盐的食物作为问题，而不是从整体上解决超加工产品问题感到失望。
But Percival has still praised the report as important and progressive in making the connections between farming and health.
但是Percival仍然称赞该报告在农业和健康之间的联系方面意义重大。
No sooner had the National Food Strategy (NFS) plan appeared, however, than the government backed away from taking action.
然而，国家食品战略（NFS）计划刚一出现，政府就放弃了行动。
The first of the strategys recommendations was a reformulation tax of 3 pounds a kilogramme on sugar and 6 pounds on salt for use in food processing, catering and restaurants and food processing.
该战略的第一个建议是对用于食品加工、餐饮和餐馆以及食品加工的糖和盐分别征收每公斤3英磅和6英磅的重税。
But on 15 July, Boris Johnson announced that he would not support the plans call for higher taxes on foods high in salt and sugar.
但7月15日，鲍里斯-约翰逊宣布，他不会支持对高盐、高糖食品征收更多税的计划。
Im not attracted to the idea of extra taxes on hard working people, said Johnson, before repeating his belief that weight loss could best be achieved through exercise.
约翰逊说，我不喜欢对辛勤工作的人征收额外税的想法，然后他重申了他的信念，即减肥最好通过运动来实现。
His language could have come from any one of the 14 failed obesity strategies.
他的语言可能来自14个失败的肥胖症战略中的任何一个。
This was a characteristic piece of political theatre from Johnson, who knows he will win points with some voters by positioning himself as a brave warrior against the nanny state.
这是约翰逊一个典型的政治技巧，他知道通过将自己定位为反对保姆式国家的勇敢战士很加分并会赢得一些选民的支持。
More significant than the fact that the prime minister ridiculed the first recommendation in the NFS plan is the fact that he remained silent on the other 13 proposals.
比起首相嘲笑NFS计划中的第一条建议，更重要的是他对其他13条建议保持沉默的事实。
Did this silence imply approval or disapproval (or simply that Johnson couldnt be bothered to read the whole thing)?
这种沉默是否意味着赞同或不赞同（或者仅仅是因为约翰逊懒得读完计划的全部）？
The real test will be the government white paper, which is due to be published in January 2022, setting out plans for legislation based on Dimbleby's report.
真正的考验将是政府的白皮书，该白皮书将于2022年1月发布，其中列出了基于丁伯斯报告的立法计划。
Will the libertarians in the Tory party ever lose their conviction that it is not governments place to meddle in how people eat?
保守党内的自由主义者会不会放弃他们的信念，即政府不应该干涉人们的饮食？
If they dont, it is unclear how Dimbleby's radical policy suggestions can be put into action.
如果他们不这样做，就不清楚丁伯斯激进的政策建议如何能够付诸实施了。
