life expectancy

Stock:

much to my surprise, asking fish bones from the "fishmonger" at the local supermarket you get them for free. Reason got to be that nobody want them (maybe not enogh expensive?). We make fumetto (fish stock) for seafood dishes (mainly risotto, but also pies and pasta).

Chicken risotto made from chicken carcasse and simple veg.

Sure, you can buy them. Probably it will take less time, so you have spare time for watching your tv or online cycling forum. But then do not complain about taste, nutrition, or price.

Try to make stock once and you will never buy it again.
(if you have a palate)

Rick Chasey wrote:

Making stock is a lot of faff.

I do not find it so.

There are some pretty good ready bought stocks now.

Same as above.

Nor are they particularly unhealthy.

Don't read the label.

For sure it tastes better and it's probably cheaper, but even I CBA to do that after a day at work.

Time it's like money: it's your and only you can chose how to use it.
If I have to chose between tv or cooking I know which I chose.

daviesee wrote:

Pep wrote:

[Time it's like money: it's your and only you can chose how to use it.

They both run out.
Life is too short for TV.

There is always an exception.

Has anyone seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k0fs0

Should be shown to all new parents by law and it shows how governments stand by and watch nations becoming ill and in many cases citizens dying prematurely to say nothing of the financial cost to the general tax payer of dealing with the results of food industries craving for profit at any cost. What sort of society stands by and allows the food industry to dish out toxic food for profit :?:

Eat better - Eat less...... it's that simple until you become targeted by the food industry, super sizing of food rich in fat, sugar and salt is literally killing people by targeted addiction from the cradle upwards.

Should be a criminal offence :evil: and how does our recently morally tuned in PM feel about it :?:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Pep wrote:

[Time it's like money: it's your and only you can chose how to use it.

They both run out.
Life is too short for TV.

There is always an exception.

Has anyone seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k0fs0

Did you not think this programme was quite common sense? 90% of it I had noticed or worked out already. The only novelty I found were the ins and outs of the food lobby with the health/food experts.

Rick, I have been boring people to death for years on this very subject but what influence does a single person have?
The fact that you may be an enlightened person and worked it out already doesn't in anyway distract from the need for the nation as a whole to be made aware of the dangers and indeed me drawing attention to it here.
Rick if I was to judge your intellect from this post alone (and I won't by the way) I would get the impression rightly or wrongly that you view the world from a very insular perspective.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably not - it was more just a general comment about a TV prog rather than a big hoo ha about TV educating the masses.

From an entertainment perspective, rather than a national health perspective.

Most people know if you eat sh!t it's bad for you, and if you eat a lot of sugary/fatty foods it's not good for you, and you'll probably put on weight.

Even fat people know that.

I don't think anyone came away thinking "christ, all those coca colas were actually making me fat?!?!?!".

We could have said exactly the same thing about fags in fact there is a lot in common here.
In fact it wasn't until activists, lawyers (mainly in the States), medical professionals and the like put enough pressure on, that Governments couldn't hind behind the industry lobbyists any longer and laws came out regarding advertising, labeling and the public exposure of fags. The main thing that the two have in common is the addictive nature of what is being sold and it is common knowledge the addiction in many rules over common sense and is used as a prime tool in the exploitation for profit.
Lets us just hope that we end up sooner rather than later dealing with toxic food the same way as we have done with toxic fags.

It's quite possible to eat really well on a budget, but I think there are two factors which combine to make it more difficult for less affluent families

1) generally speaking, the less money you have to spend, the more time and knowledge is required to prepare good quality food

I'm pretty sure that I could make a good Thai chicken curry for 10 people for the price Rick says he's paying to make it for 2. But I'd not be starting with prepared chicken breasts, I'd be starting with a whole chicken. I can do freshly made pizza for my family of 6 for less than £1 a head, but not unless I start with bread flour and yeast rather than packet mixes or ready-made bases.

2) also generally speaking, the less money you have to spend, the more fat/sugar/salt your convenience food options will have in them to bulk them up and make them taste palateable.

Buy a pack of the cheapest sausages you can find in the supermarket and fry them. Repeat experiment with the most expensive. Compare the amount of fat left in the pan......

There's a lot about education and awareness too, but the hurdle you have to jump is higher the less money you have to spend.

Rick Chasey wrote:

For sure, but calling me insular because I commented on a TV prog rather than the bigger issue's a bit much!

I remember this... "Rick if I was to judge your intellect from this post alone (and I won't by the way) I would get the impression rightly or wrongly that you view the world from a very insular perspective. "

Not quite the same thing and wasn't meant to be the same thing either as calling you insular and don't forget the wink at the end

rhext wrote:

..but the programme wasn't about that, it was about the techniques used to manipulate people into buying (and consuming) more than they want or need. I thought it was fascinating, as well as deeply disturbing.

It was good, though I didn't like the intonation of the voice-over, but I thought they were being a bit liberal with the 'sinister side'.

I mean, heaven forbid food manufacturers want people to eat more of their food.

I remember at one point either this week or last week they were talking with sinister tones about food manufacturers of snacky stuff advertising their food to create the idea that they can snack on their food any time of day.

Well duh, obviously.

For me, I'd have preferred more emphasis on the gov't failure to address the issue, rather than the food manufacturers. It's not a secret sham by them. They want to sell stuff, so the more of their stuff is eaten, the more money they make.

The gov't should realise this incentive isn't perhaps in society's best interest and react accordingly. That they haven't/didn't is the issue for me, not that coca cola want people to drink loads of coca cola.

Rick, the series isn't finished yet and we may here more about why our Governments haven't acted more to outlaw the food industries growth tactics. You are absolutely right that this is the area where we should ultimately have the most concern but without the program giving if you like the history and detail of the problem it wouldn't then give the watching public facts to draw conclusions from.
There was some coverage about the shelving of a commissioned medical report regards this issue by Tessa Jowell the then Minister of State in the Department of Health. Jowell could be remembered for being married to a David Mills. Mills was investigated in Italy for money laundering and tax fraud. Jowell herself was investigated for conflict of interest but was ultimately cleared of any wrong doing by a one Tony Blair PM at the time and like David Mills a friend of Silvio Berlusconi. It was known at time loosely as 'Jowellgate'.
So yes what influences indeed by the huge companies which we here collectively refer to as 'the food industry' are made to bear over our governments. I know that there can be subjects such as lobbing, donations, intimidation and after all don't most of our current high fly MP's and Ministers train after grooming school to be Lobbyists before hopefully being discovered. It's all part of the institutional, self perpetuating, cosey, self sustaining inner ring of the ruling classes to favor businesses that have real financial and influential clout. Example the Murdoch Empire, well his isn't the only empire welding such an unhealthy amount of influence.