评论
打印
As Tim Spector outlined in his recent book Spoon-Fed, evidence suggests that exercise while beneficial, especially for mental health does not reliably cause weight loss.
正如蒂姆-斯佩克特在他最近出版的《勺子喂养》一书中所概述的那样，有证据表明，运动虽然有益，尤其是对心理健康，但却并不能稳定地让体重下降。
But obesity policies that propose more sport, rather than changes to diet, have always been popular in government because they pose no threat to the junk food industry.
但是提出更多运动而不是改变饮食的减肥政策在政府中一直很受欢迎，因为它们对垃圾食品行业不构成威胁。
We shouldnt be talking about obesity policy (let alone an obesity crisis) at all, but about food quality laws or junk food control.
我们根本就不应该讨论肥胖政策（更不用说肥胖危机），而应该讨论食品质量法或垃圾食品控制法。
After all, the government does not produce tobacco strategies with titles such as childhood smokers: a plan for action or tackling smokers lungs.
毕竟，政府不会制定标题为 "儿童吸烟者行动计划 "或 "解决吸烟者的肺 "的烟草战略。
Chris van Tulleken, an infectious diseases doctor at University College London hospital, told me that, as with tobacco, the focus should be on regulating the marketing, not blaming the consumer.
伦敦大学学院医院的传染病医生Chris van Tulleken告诉我，与烟草一样，重点应该放在监管营销上，而不是指责消费者。
He argues that ultra-processed foods should come with a warning label and that these products should not be marketed to children.
他认为，超加工食品应该有一个警告标签，这些产品不应该向儿童推销。
But there is still a reluctance within the UK government even to identify ultra-processed food as a problem.
但是，英国政府内部甚至仍然不愿意将超加工食品视为一个问题。
As Gyorgy Scrinis, an Australian professor of food policy, has shown, the big food companies have successfully lobbied governments around the world to ensure that official nutrition advice stays focused on individual nutrients in packaged foods rather than on ultra-processed food in general.
正如澳大利亚食品政策教授Gyorgy Scrinis所表明的那样，大型食品公司已经成功地游说了世界各地的政府，以确保官方的营养建议一直集中在包装食品中的个别营养成分上，而不是一般的超加工食品。
What would it take for England to have a food policy fit for the task?
英格兰要如何才能拥有能完成这项任务的食品政策？
One obvious solution would be to create a designated minister of food to coordinate food policy, as there was during the war and up until 1955, when the Ministry of Food became subsumed by Agriculture and Fisheries.
一个明显的解决方案是设立一位食品部长来协调食品政策，就像战争期间之后到1955年食品部归入农业和渔业部之前的情况那样。
Another solution would be to say that food is so relevant to every aspect of life that there should be food in every policy.
另一个解决方案是，粮食与生活的各个方面都息息相关，因此每项政策中都应该有粮食。
This is the approach favoured by the NFS report, which ruled out the idea of a single food minister, noting that food is not unique in being split across multiple departments.
这是国家粮食局报告所赞成的方法，该报告排除了设立一位粮食部长的想法，并指出将粮食分割给多个部门掌管的情况并非孤例。
Since the second world war, Dimbleby argued, the purpose of the food system in England has been to maximise the production of cheap food, regardless of quality.
丁伯斯认为，自第二次世界大战以来，英国食品系统的目的是最大限度地生产廉价食品，而不考虑其质量。
This urgently needs to change, but to pivot to a new system that produces nourishing, sustainable food would require radical adjustments all the way through the food chain.
这种情况迫切需要改变，但要转向一个生产有营养、可持续的新的食物系统，需要对整个食物生产链进行彻底的调整。
There is a need, as Dimbleby notes, for every cog in the wheel of the food system to be designed to make us well instead of sick, to be resilient and to help halt climate change.
正如丁伯斯所指出的，有必要调整食品系统中的每一个齿轮，让其为让我们的健康而不是生病，让我们的身体具有复原力，并帮助阻止气候变化而服务。
But where will this shared sense of purpose come from?
但是，这种共同的目标感将从何而来？
Having interviewed 23 of the most senior civil servants and politicians in Westminster, Kelly Parsons told me that she realised that at the highest levels of government in England, food was endlessly pushed down the agenda.
在采访了威斯敏斯特的23名最高级公务员和政治家后，凯莉-帕森斯告诉我，她意识到在英国政府的最高层，食品被无休止地推到了议程之外。
It simply wasn't seen as important.
他们认为食品问题根本不重要。
