论文部分内容阅读
肥胖問题已经成为了影响现代人生活质量的一大顽疾，并且我们也在被一个悖论所困扰：我们虽然吃得比前人少，却比前人胖得多。解决肥胖问题的关键在于引导大众从小养成良好的生活和饮食习惯。为了年轻一代的健康成长，政府、学校和家长都责无旁贷。
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 we’ll 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 country’s 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 we’d 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， we’re 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： we’re eating less as a fat nation than we did as a slim one.11
There’s 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. We aren’t 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， we’d have done it. They would grow up with a preference for a healthy lifestyle， they’d indoctrinate their children and voilà！17 Problem solved.
But I hadn’t 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
I’ve been banging away19 for 40 years about the dangers of not eating properly， and I’ve 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 week’s 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 they’ll 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. So has Finland cracked29 the problem？ Sadly not. As vending machines30 are going back in schools， the population are increasingly taking to eating fattening snacks. Obesity started to rise again and the government has realised that there is no option but to keep up the pressure. Now there are places doing remarkably well again.
Part of the UK’s problem is that we see government intervention as nannying—in an ideal world， a free society can’t stop people doing what’s bad for them.31 You can’t close down Cadbury’s32 because some people eat too much chocolate.
However， since the state must pick up the bill for ill health， it has every right to insist on education to limit the risk. Given how many obese adults started out as obese children， being serious about tackling obesity must mean landing schools with some of the responsibility.33 By the time children finish primary school， those from the poorest households are now twice as likely to be obese as the richest. Plainly， obesity is not just about what food people can afford—it’s about habit.
Since the parents’ diet tends to be part of the problem， the best way to tackle this is in the classroom. I don’t think there is a parent or a child in the country who doesn’t know that green veg is better for you than chips. The problem is， they don’t like the taste， and the only way to get to like it is by trying it repeatedly—children can be taught to love vegetables， and the best way is to have them grow it， cook it and eat it.
It’s not the only way. If adults are to make the right choices， it needs to be made easy for them. We need enough sporting facilities， green spaces and playgrounds， for grown-ups as well as children. And fresh food needs to be available， affordable and accessible as well as desirable. It’s no good convincing someone that veg is healthy and delicious if there isn’t a bus to the supermarket and the corner shop on the estate only stocks tins.34
All of which means getting the Departments of Education， Health， Environment and Sport to work together， and the Treasury to cough up a shedload of money.35 What chance of that？
1. Britannia：（大）不列顛，英国的拟人化称呼（以头戴钢盔手持盾牌及三叉戟的女人为象征）。
2. OECD： 经济合作与发展组织（Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development）的简称，该组织成立于1961年，是由35个市场经济国家组成的政府间国际经济组织，旨在共同应对全球化带来的经济、社会和政府治理等方面的挑战，把握全球化带来的机遇。
3. NHS： 英国国家医疗服务体系（National Health Service）的简称，该体系是二战后英国工党提出的社会改革措施之一，旨在为全英人民提供普遍、全面、免费的医疗服务；surgical procedure： 外科手术；amputation： 截肢手术；diabetes： // 糖尿病。 4. taxman： 税务部门。
5. drain： 消耗，枯竭；coffer： （政府、机构等的）金库。
6. conundrum： // 谜题，难题。
7. pension： 养老金，退休金。
8. out-of-breath： 气喘吁吁的。
9. labelling： 标记（比如对有机食品进行标注等）；subsidy： 补贴，补助金；be obliged to： 有义务做某事，不得已做某事。
10. 关于我们比前一两代人吃得多得多这样的无稽之谈已经太多了。rot： 废话，蠢话；guzzle： 大吃大喝，暴饮暴食。
11. 这就产生了一个关于肥胖的悖论：我们这个国家现在变胖了，吃得却比以前少了。paradox： 悖论，自相矛盾的话。
12. heave： 拖，拉；hay： 干草，草料；barrow：（街头贩卖水果、蔬菜等的）手推车；scrub： 擦洗。
13. forebear： 祖先。
14. intake： 摄入，吸收；nowhere near： 远不及；compensate for： 抵消，弥补；sedentary： 久坐不动的。
15. epidemic：（坏事迅速的）泛滥，蔓延。
16. manual： 手工的，体力的。
17. indoctrinate： // 教导，灌输；voilà： 法语，这里译为“瞧！”、“看！”。
18. 但是我没有考虑到反面的阻力：食品制造商们运用自己的聪明才智，将脂肪、糖和盐混合制成最美味的食物，然后极力兜售造成的巨大影响；小吃文化的兴起，以及人们更乐意花费时间在屏幕前而非坐在餐桌前吃饭；一个温暖沙发的诱惑胜过在雨中跑步；学校课堂中的竞争压力，以及政府更愿意把钱花在其他重要的事情上，却在公民健康这件事上非常吝啬。reckon on： 指望，想到；contraforce： 反作用力；peddle： 兜售，叫卖；parsimony： // 吝啬，小气。
19. bang away： 坚持不懈地做，拼命地干。
20. 但是很明顯，除非我们始终保持宣传力度，不断推出鼓励措施，否则我们还是会走下坡路。incentive：鼓励措施；backsliding： 倒退，故态复萌。
21. grasp： 明白，理解。
22. council： 议会；shoe-clamp： 鞋夹，冬天用来帮助人们更容易在雪地中行走的装备；lingonberry： // 越橘，一种常绿灌木植物，果实大多味道鲜美，富含氨基酸、维生素、糖类及矿物质元素等；subsidise：资助；fattening： 使人变胖的。
23. plank： 政策核心，要点。
24. airy： 轻松的。
25. 食物是一批批现做的，所以当它们被送到柜台上时还非常新鲜。from scratch： 从零开始的；in batches：分批地。
26. 错开就餐时间以消除排队现象，学生们自行挑选食物，多少由人，但不能浪费。stagger： 使错开，使交错。
27. conservative： 保守的。
28. caterer： 饮食服务公司；boast： 自夸，吹嘘。
29. crack： 解决（难题）。
30. vending machine： 自动售货机。
31. 英国存在的一个问题是，我们把政府干预看成是过度保护——许多人会认为，在一个理想的世界中，自由社会是不能阻止人们去做对他们有害的事情的（此处为反讽语气）。 nannying：（导致丧失独立能力的）过度庇护。
32. Cadbury：（旧称Cadbury’s）吉百利，英国历史最悠久的巧克力品牌之一。
33. 鉴于有很多肥胖的成年人从小就胖，认真考虑解决肥胖问题就需要让学校承担一些责任。
34. corner shop： 街角小店；on the estate： 住宅区附近；tin： 罐头，罐装物。
35. the Treasury： 财政部；cough up：（尤指不情愿地）出钱；a shedload of：大量的。
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 we’ll 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 country’s 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 we’d 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， we’re 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： we’re eating less as a fat nation than we did as a slim one.11
There’s 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. We aren’t 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， we’d have done it. They would grow up with a preference for a healthy lifestyle， they’d indoctrinate their children and voilà！17 Problem solved.
But I hadn’t 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
I’ve been banging away19 for 40 years about the dangers of not eating properly， and I’ve 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 week’s 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 they’ll 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. So has Finland cracked29 the problem？ Sadly not. As vending machines30 are going back in schools， the population are increasingly taking to eating fattening snacks. Obesity started to rise again and the government has realised that there is no option but to keep up the pressure. Now there are places doing remarkably well again.
Part of the UK’s problem is that we see government intervention as nannying—in an ideal world， a free society can’t stop people doing what’s bad for them.31 You can’t close down Cadbury’s32 because some people eat too much chocolate.
However， since the state must pick up the bill for ill health， it has every right to insist on education to limit the risk. Given how many obese adults started out as obese children， being serious about tackling obesity must mean landing schools with some of the responsibility.33 By the time children finish primary school， those from the poorest households are now twice as likely to be obese as the richest. Plainly， obesity is not just about what food people can afford—it’s about habit.
Since the parents’ diet tends to be part of the problem， the best way to tackle this is in the classroom. I don’t think there is a parent or a child in the country who doesn’t know that green veg is better for you than chips. The problem is， they don’t like the taste， and the only way to get to like it is by trying it repeatedly—children can be taught to love vegetables， and the best way is to have them grow it， cook it and eat it.
It’s not the only way. If adults are to make the right choices， it needs to be made easy for them. We need enough sporting facilities， green spaces and playgrounds， for grown-ups as well as children. And fresh food needs to be available， affordable and accessible as well as desirable. It’s no good convincing someone that veg is healthy and delicious if there isn’t a bus to the supermarket and the corner shop on the estate only stocks tins.34
All of which means getting the Departments of Education， Health， Environment and Sport to work together， and the Treasury to cough up a shedload of money.35 What chance of that？
1. Britannia：（大）不列顛，英国的拟人化称呼（以头戴钢盔手持盾牌及三叉戟的女人为象征）。
2. OECD： 经济合作与发展组织（Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development）的简称，该组织成立于1961年，是由35个市场经济国家组成的政府间国际经济组织，旨在共同应对全球化带来的经济、社会和政府治理等方面的挑战，把握全球化带来的机遇。
3. NHS： 英国国家医疗服务体系（National Health Service）的简称，该体系是二战后英国工党提出的社会改革措施之一，旨在为全英人民提供普遍、全面、免费的医疗服务；surgical procedure： 外科手术；amputation： 截肢手术；diabetes： // 糖尿病。 4. taxman： 税务部门。
5. drain： 消耗，枯竭；coffer： （政府、机构等的）金库。
6. conundrum： // 谜题，难题。
7. pension： 养老金，退休金。
8. out-of-breath： 气喘吁吁的。
9. labelling： 标记（比如对有机食品进行标注等）；subsidy： 补贴，补助金；be obliged to： 有义务做某事，不得已做某事。
10. 关于我们比前一两代人吃得多得多这样的无稽之谈已经太多了。rot： 废话，蠢话；guzzle： 大吃大喝，暴饮暴食。
11. 这就产生了一个关于肥胖的悖论：我们这个国家现在变胖了，吃得却比以前少了。paradox： 悖论，自相矛盾的话。
12. heave： 拖，拉；hay： 干草，草料；barrow：（街头贩卖水果、蔬菜等的）手推车；scrub： 擦洗。
13. forebear： 祖先。
14. intake： 摄入，吸收；nowhere near： 远不及；compensate for： 抵消，弥补；sedentary： 久坐不动的。
15. epidemic：（坏事迅速的）泛滥，蔓延。
16. manual： 手工的，体力的。
17. indoctrinate： // 教导，灌输；voilà： 法语，这里译为“瞧！”、“看！”。
18. 但是我没有考虑到反面的阻力：食品制造商们运用自己的聪明才智，将脂肪、糖和盐混合制成最美味的食物，然后极力兜售造成的巨大影响；小吃文化的兴起，以及人们更乐意花费时间在屏幕前而非坐在餐桌前吃饭；一个温暖沙发的诱惑胜过在雨中跑步；学校课堂中的竞争压力，以及政府更愿意把钱花在其他重要的事情上，却在公民健康这件事上非常吝啬。reckon on： 指望，想到；contraforce： 反作用力；peddle： 兜售，叫卖；parsimony： // 吝啬，小气。
19. bang away： 坚持不懈地做，拼命地干。
20. 但是很明顯，除非我们始终保持宣传力度，不断推出鼓励措施，否则我们还是会走下坡路。incentive：鼓励措施；backsliding： 倒退，故态复萌。
21. grasp： 明白，理解。
22. council： 议会；shoe-clamp： 鞋夹，冬天用来帮助人们更容易在雪地中行走的装备；lingonberry： // 越橘，一种常绿灌木植物，果实大多味道鲜美，富含氨基酸、维生素、糖类及矿物质元素等；subsidise：资助；fattening： 使人变胖的。
23. plank： 政策核心，要点。
24. airy： 轻松的。
25. 食物是一批批现做的，所以当它们被送到柜台上时还非常新鲜。from scratch： 从零开始的；in batches：分批地。
26. 错开就餐时间以消除排队现象，学生们自行挑选食物，多少由人，但不能浪费。stagger： 使错开，使交错。
27. conservative： 保守的。
28. caterer： 饮食服务公司；boast： 自夸，吹嘘。
29. crack： 解决（难题）。
30. vending machine： 自动售货机。
31. 英国存在的一个问题是，我们把政府干预看成是过度保护——许多人会认为，在一个理想的世界中，自由社会是不能阻止人们去做对他们有害的事情的（此处为反讽语气）。 nannying：（导致丧失独立能力的）过度庇护。
32. Cadbury：（旧称Cadbury’s）吉百利，英国历史最悠久的巧克力品牌之一。
33. 鉴于有很多肥胖的成年人从小就胖，认真考虑解决肥胖问题就需要让学校承担一些责任。
34. corner shop： 街角小店；on the estate： 住宅区附近；tin： 罐头，罐装物。
35. the Treasury： 财政部；cough up：（尤指不情愿地）出钱；a shedload of：大量的。