Hugh's War on Waste

moneyistooshorttomention

martinsurrey wrote: »

Now if he would come out and say, "I only want well off people to eat meat that has been reared to the highest standards or it to be a real treat for those on low incomes" I would have less of a problem, as that is what he means.

I don't see it that way. That would be deciding, on his behalf, that its a "sin" not to be well-off (I would say "reasonably off").

Well - there are many of us that have done what we reasonably can to be okay financially - but still haven't managed it (despite our best efforts) on the one hand #puts hand up here.

On the other hand are those who have a reasonable income level - but have chosen to spend some of that income in ways that others of us just wouldn't (whether because we don't want to on the one hand OR because we know we cant afford to and we don't on the other hand).

Sometimes not being able to afford something is down to personal choice to have other priorities as to where to spend the income coming into the household. Other times its because that household simply doesn't have enough income coming in in the first place (even with the best effort in the world and taking things in logical order of priority).

However - for whatever reason someone "cant afford" something (be it because they really cant or because they have made the decision to prioritise other things) then I don't see him as making a "value judgement" either way and saying "Its your fault you cant afford it. Its your fault you aren't well-off (my translation = of reasonably off)".

It is what it is and I honestly don't think he is doing value judgements.

honeythewitch

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I would agree with Caterina on that. No point in having "chips on shoulder" about the fact that the person doing the campaigning has come from a more privileged background.

Sometimes - that person from privileged background doesn't have much idea how things are for "the ordinary person in the street.

BUT - on the other hand - its often a sight easier for people from more privileged backgrounds to have the leisure/mindspace (because that mind isn't so tied-up with having to worry about everyday existence as many people are) to be free to focus on things like this.

He's got the time, the money, the clout to push this - whereas many other people haven't.

Personally - I think its as well to be glad when someone with more "power to their elbow" than many uses it usefully like this.

I dont think you need to experience a situation(such as poverty) to understand it, as long as you are willing to listen to those going through it.
If this presenter can change things for the better, good for him!

Pollycat wrote: »

Didn't one of the major supermarkts start doing a range of fresh fruit & veg that wasn't 'perfectly formed'?

Sainsburys, with humorous slogans.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Does recall standing there in T*sco last week looking to buy one single organic pepper (and unable to do so again as per usual:mad:) and seeing that the choice of various peppers included a large bag of (non-organic) peppers of all sorts of sizes and shapes being sold at a very good price (think it was £1??) - so maybe its T*sco.
So they are certainly doing at least some mis-shaped veggies.

I am very glad of the misshapen peppers because they are much cheaper. I am obviously not the only one though,because they seem to sellout very quickly.

windup

old story, it's been done hundreds of times before, Tv companies have run out of ideas.

you'll get some vague promises that supermarkets will offer curly carrots to the masses if they buy them - they won't, they'll continue to buy the straight ones, and nothing will change.

do people really need someone on the telly to tell them that they could buy less or cook that food and eat or freeze it for another day, rather than throw it away, it's condescending.

People are either wasteful, or they are not, it largely comes down to how you are brought up and educated.

---

ps, dear tv exec's, politicians, and moneysaving celebs - everyone knows they can probably save some money by switching their gas and electricity, broadband, phone, tv to another provider, and buying cheaper brands of food, thanks.

martinsurrey

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't see it that way. That would be deciding, on his behalf, that its a "sin" not to be well-off (I would say "reasonably off").

Well - there are many of us that have done what we reasonably can to be okay financially - but still haven't managed it (despite our best efforts) on the one hand #puts hand up here.

On the other hand are those who have a reasonable income level - but have chosen to spend some of that income in ways that others of us just wouldn't (whether because we don't want to on the one hand OR because we know we cant afford to and we don't on the other hand).

Sometimes not being able to afford something is down to personal choice to have other priorities as to where to spend the income coming into the household. Other times its because that household simply doesn't have enough income coming in in the first place (even with the best effort in the world and taking things in logical order of priority).

However - for whatever reason someone "cant afford" something (be it because they really cant or because they have made the decision to prioritise other things) then I don't see him as making a "value judgement" either way and saying "Its your fault you cant afford it. Its your fault you aren't well-off (my translation = of reasonably off)".

It is what it is and I honestly don't think he is doing value judgements.

Cut through the detail, if his morals on the production of meat causes the price of meat to rise, it will make that item less affordable for some, its a simple fact.

rather than address that fact, he brushes it aside with "free range isnt expensive"

as I said, if he came out and said, "meat should be twice as expensive to pay for animal welfare, either pay up or eat half as much of it" I would respect it.

honeythewitch

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=253554596

100g - 20p - 20 cal 1 of 5 a day

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254638565

100g - 6p - 42 cal 1 of 5 a day

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=277812433

100g - 21p - 16 cal 1 of 5 a day

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=288651329

half a pepper - 10p - 1 of 5 a day

add some frozen sweercorn

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=264336705

100g - 11p 1 of 5 a day.

and we're at 5 of your 5 a day, 450g of food, for 68p.

add 150g of potates

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=258423755

thats 9p and now were at a 600g meal with 800+ calories, 5 portions of veg and it cost 77p


for some protein add an egg

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=252114301

8p each.

add in a stock cube or some seasoning for 10p, and its a healthy meal that can be cooked in the microwave in a single bowl.

total 95p its bigger than the ready meal AND healthier than the ready meal

the ready meal takes 13mins in the microwave, all of the above can be cooked in the micro as well, in under 13 mins.

its not as easy, but it IS cheaper.

so if people are lazy, or don't care about a balanced diet, fine, but its not that veg is more expensive.

It is a cheap and probably delicious meal, but my point was that for those living on the poverty line with only a pound a day for food (apparently lots of people) they would have an awful lot of calories to make up with the remaining five pence! :eek:

Gigervamp wrote: »

As I said in my post and has been pointed out by others, that reply doesn't wash. Chicken is not essential to a healthy diet. If you must have meat, buy less, but better quality and use other proteins.

Anyway, a lot of people eat far more than the recommended amount of protein.

I read somewhere that lower income children tend to have too little protein? Is this correct?
I am surprised at how little protein is in a lot of ready meals, with only a teaspoon of meat, sometimes.

windup wrote: »

old story, it's been done hundreds of times before, Tv companies have run out of ideas.

you'll get some vague promises that supermarkets will offer curly carrots to the masses if they buy them - they won't they'll continue to buy the straight ones, and nothing will change.

do people really need someone on the telly to tell them that they could buy less or cook that food and freeze or eat it rather than throw it away, it's condescending.

The programmes can often be condescending, and give the impression that poor people can afford to eat well if only they weren't too stupid or lazy.

For those of us old enough to have had home economics lessons at school, and the time to learn to shop and cook wisely when we had families, it is very easy.

For those who have never been taught, and have to work, and have little time to prepare decent food it is much more difficult, and poverty makes it harder still.

martinsurrey

honeythewitch wrote: »

It is a cheap and probably delicious meal, but my point was that for those living on the poverty line with only a pound a day for food (apparently lots of people) they would have an awful lot of calories to make up with the remaining five pence! :eek:

the ready meal is only 740 calories for £1.

my point is you can make cheaper healthier food (than ready meals) with careful choices and some prep, without any more equipment than a plate, a bowl, a knife, and a microwave.

being poor doesn't mean you cannot afford to eat fresh veg (being lazy does though).

honeythewitch

martinsurrey wrote: »

the ready meal is only 740 calories for £1.

my point is you can make cheaper healthier food (than ready meals) with careful choices and some prep, without any more equipment than a plate, a bowl, a knife, and a microwave.

being poor doesn't mean you cannot afford to eat fresh veg (being lazy does though).

I wasn't comparing it to a ready meal. (different poster) I dont think most have an awful lot of nutrition in them, but it is clear that the poorest people simply can not afford a selection of fruit and vegetables every day and have enough calories too.

martinsurrey

honeythewitch wrote: »

I wasn't comparing it to a ready meal. (different poster) I dont think most have an awful lot of nutrition in them, but it is clear that the poorest people simply can not afford a selection of fruit and vegetables every day and have enough calories too.

show me what they DO eat...

[Deleted User]

martinsurrey wrote: »

add in a stock cube or some seasoning for 10p, and its a healthy meal

So that's a whole day's salt ration in one meal then.

honeythewitch

martinsurrey wrote: »

show me what they DO eat...

The cheapest and most calorie dense foods, obviously. If its all you can afford you make do.