Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Poor Britons healthier than rich Americans | 61 comments (61 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (none / 1)
Now studies of the heath of the nation showed that rationing produced a radical improvement in the health of all socio-economic groups.

wow!  can you provide urls?

this raises all kinds of questions and implications, especially for the generation which experienced rationing as kids and teens, and swore to themselves "Never again, dammit."

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (none / 1)
Frustratingly I cannot immediately find references to the primary sources but this from a .pdf British Butrion Association booklet gives the process:


During the Second World War (1939-1945) the British
government introduced food rationing to make sure that
everyone received their fair share of the limited food which was
available. Food rationing started in 1940 and finally ended in
1954. To start with only a few foods were rationed, but more
foods were included as the years passed. The rations of food
varied throughout the war and additional allowances were given
to certain groups. Each person was given a ration book. A
'points' scheme was introduced for unrationed foods. Each
person was allocated a number of points and a selected range of
foods was given a point value. The consumer could choose how
to spend these points. Many people were better fed during
wartime food rationing than before the war years. Infant mortality rates declined, and the average age
at which people died from natural causes increased.
The wartime food shortages forced people to adopt new eating patterns. Most people ate less meat,
fat, eggs and sugar than they had eaten before. But people who had a poor diet before, were able to
increase their intake of protein and vitamins because they received the same
ration as everybody else.
The `National Loaf' was introduced. It was made with more
grain then was used in white bread, resulting in a brown loaf.
White bread was no longer available and brown bread
became the norm.
Part of the work of the Ministry of food was to give advice to
the British public about how to make the best of the food that was available. This
included radio broadcasts, cookery demonstrations and recipe leaflets.
'Dr Carrot' and 'Potato Pete' were characters introduced to
encourage people to eat home grown vegetables which were plentiful.
Many people grew their own vegetables, and kept hens to
supplement their rations.
Special arrangements were young
children, expectant and nursing mothers
to receive cod-liver oil, orange juice and
milk from welfare clinics. When the
oranges were available children under six
years of age were entitled to receive 1lb
each week. The general health of children
improved and on average they were taller and heavier than children born
before the war.

A newsletter of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine  had this in the precis of an article on rationing.


Many people were better fed during wartime food rationing than before the war years. Infant mortality rates declined, and the average age at which people died from natural causes increased

The effects are further detailed here


Towards the end of World War II it was noted that overall the health of the British nation improved quite dramatically, despite rationing. On the whole national statistics reflected that individuals were healthier and notably more slender in their physique. Due to the fact that poorer members of society were able to eat better-balanced and nutritionally superior diets, as everyone was given equal entitlement to foods. Food and drink supplements were provided for pregnant mothers, children and the elderly ensuring everyone was catered for.

Even more interesting is this from a personal web site of a member of this cohort.


With hindsight the denial of sweets, confectionery, cakes, chocolate and sugary drinks in my younger years was a blessing as it means I have never craved for these items, apart from 5 February 1953 when sweet rationing ceased and my brother and I were given an extra week's pocket money 6d [2 ½ pence] to get a quarter of a pound, [4 ounces or 115 g approx.] of whatever sweets we wanted
by Londonbear on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 08:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (none / 0)
thank you londonbear!

illustrates several (somewhat disturbing) points.

  1. what we want is not necessarily good for us

  2. "high status" foods like refined sugar and refined flour are pathogenic enough that vulgarising their availability may have profound public health implications

and I'm sure a lot more as well.  add to the mix Monbiot's latest interesting suggestion that junk food consumption may be related to crime rates.

Does television cause crime? The idea that people copy the violence they watch is debated endlessly by criminologists. But this column concerns an odder and perhaps more interesting notion: if crime leaps out of the box, it is not the programmes that are responsible as much as the material in between. It proposes that violence emerges from those blissful images of family life, purged of all darkness, that we see in the advertisements.

Let me begin, in constructing this strange argument, with a paper published in the latest edition of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. It provides empirical support for the contention that children who watch more television eat more of the foods it advertises. "Each hour increase in television viewing", it found, "was associated with an additional 167 kilocalories per day"(1). Most of these extra calories were contained in junk foods: fizzy drinks, crisps, biscuits, sweets, burgers and chicken nuggets. Watching television, the paper reported, "is also inversely associated with intake of fruit and vegetables".

There is no longer any serious debate about what a TV diet does to your body [...]
But the more interesting question is what this diet might do to your mind. There are now scores of studies suggesting that it hurts the brain as much as it hurts the heart and the pancreas. Among the many proposed associations is a link between bad food and violent or anti-social behaviour.

The most spectacular results were those reported in the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine in 1997(3). The researchers had conducted a double-blind, controlled experiment in a jail for chronic offenders aged between 13 and 17. Many of the boys there were deficient in certain nutrients. They consumed, on average, only 63% of the iron, 42% of the magnesium, 39% of the zinc, 39% of the vitamin B12 and 34% of the folate in the US government's recommended daily allowance. The researchers treated half the inmates with capsules containing the missing nutrients, and half with placebos. They also counselled all the prisoners in the trial about improving their diets. The number of violent incidents caused by inmates in the control group (those taking the placebos) fell by 56%, and in the experimental group by 80%. But among the inmates in the placebo group who refused to improve their diets, there was no reduction. The researchers also wired their subjects up to an electroencephalogram (which records brainwave patterns), and found a major decrease in abnormalities after 13 weeks on supplements(4).

A similar paper, published in 2002 in the British Journal of Psychiatry, found that among young adult prisoners given supplements of the vitamins, minerals and fatty acids in which they were deficient, disciplinary offences fell by 26% in the experimental group, and not at all in the control group(5). Researchers in Finland found that all 68 of the violent offenders they tested during another study suffered from reactive hypoglycaemia: an abnormal tolerance of glucose caused by an excessive consumption of sugar, carbohydrates and stimulants such as caffeine(6). In March this year the lead author of the 2002 report, Bernard Gesch, told the Ecologist magazine that "having a bad diet is now a better predictor of future violence than past violent behaviour. ... Likewise, a diagnosis of psychopathy, generally perceived as being a better predictor than a criminal past, is still miles behind what you can predict just from looking at what a person eats."(7)

Why should a link between diet and behaviour be surprising? Quite aside from the physiological effects of eating too much sugar (apparent to anyone who has attended a children's party), the brain, whose function depends on precise biochemical processes, can't work properly with insufficient raw materials. [... more ...]

I have references somewhere to a high school which switched its cafeteria over to strictly healthy/organic cooking and banned soft drink and candy machines from the campus.  behavioural problems among the children diminished dramatically.  I'll try to find it in the chaos of my filing [hah!] system.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 08:57:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (none / 0)
The English chef and TV cook did a whole series "Jamie's School Dinners" where he went into a school and changed the food from what was essentially fast food take away to  freshly prepared healthy food.  There was an improvement in concentration, a dramatic fall-off in children needing to take asthma inhalers during the day and an improvement in results and behaviour. The experiment was so successful it was rolled out to all the London Borough's schools (Greenwich) This was part of a campaign he has to improve school meals which has its own web site  In the occasional diary he writes he mentions visiting the USA.
by Londonbear on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 10:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (none / 0)
forgive my vulgar curiosity... but why are you awake?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 10:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (4.00 / 2)
Local election results in short. My local party (Lib Dems) have gained 10 council seats from Labour to move the council to no overall control, the first time since 1971 that they have lost control. I am waiting on the results for Tower Hamlets where there are strange things going on as seats are "churning" with Labour gaining 3 from Lib Dems and Conservatives gaining 6 from Labour. Last time there were reports the areas where George Galloway's Respect party are considered strongest are still to come in.

As I am on "second wind" I'll just post a couple of comments about what you can actually expect if you are acutely ill here. If I need to see a general practioner I can get an appointment in 48 hours, if urgent I can go to the surgery and wait a couple of hours max to get an emergency slot. Out of surgery hours I can either go to a local centre or call out a doctor for a home visit  from the locum service (how many American doctors do that?) I live a half hour bus ride from two hospital minor injuries units run by GPs and nurse-practioners. On each of the two times I have had to use them I was seen within about 10 minutes of booking in at recption. Ambulance service is free and most crews now are fully trained paramedics who can stabilise patients instead of doing a "scoop and run". You can also get free advice from trained nurses on a local rate telephone call system. They either give self-help advice or refer you to a doctor or call an ambulace for you. Called "NHS Direct", they also have a web site that duplicates much of the "decision tree" expert systems that they use for the advice.

My local doctors' surgery has clinic sessions for dieticians, psychogical counselling, osteopathy, baby checkups and innoculation. It also does minor surgery (like removing a skin tag that my shirt collar kept knocking and a couple that were just annoying). I get annual flu injections as I am considered "high risk" because alergies can very infrequently give me a mild asthma. One of the doctors does acupuncture treatments and they can refer you to subsidised exercise sessions in the local swimming pool/gym. Non-urgent hospital treatment can mean waiting but the times are coming down. The main difference in quality is the "hotel accommodation" as there are still multi-bed wards - though these are now often arranged as 6-8 bed "bays" in the newer hospitals. Some operations are being carried out in private hospitals to reduce waiting times. These are fairly widely available as the better off take out private insurance to get better "hotel facilities" like  individual rooms or to be able to specify the date for a treatment. If you have an acute illness like cancer, a hospital will admit you for treatment virtually immediately.

All is certainly not roses. There are ridiculous financial problems resulting hospitals having to make staff redundant because of changes to their funding. Bed occupancy is so high that the risk of catching infections like MRSA are increased. Many have had to "contract out" services like cleaning and laundry to private companies who can provide inferior servies to the old in-house systems. At the moment there are some areas where quick access to sexually transmitted disease clinics can be difficult - meaningeitherr ou have to shop around to find one that has a limited "walk in" system or making an appointment. This particular problem seems to result from a combination of the underfunding of a "cinderella" service and an increase in demand from patients wanting a sexual health check-up as a result of publicity.

You should also realise that the service is organised semi-locally into "health care trusts" covering say a county or couple of London Boroughs. Drugs are both licensed for use (ie declared safe like FDA approval) and new ones are approved for use as cost-effective by a central body called N.I.H.C.E. (pronouced nice as the H was added later) Their decisions can cause problems - an example being their refusal to approve inhaled insulin for general use. The local Trusts can refuse to pay for treatments not passed by NIHCE - a current one is a treatment for early breast cancer which is only effective in certain cases and is marginally more effective than existing therapies.

A large part of the financial overspend (actually a measly 1% of the whole budget if you take the country as a whole) is down to the effect of considerable improvements in nurses' pay and the pay and conditions of doctors. These are now about the highest in Europe and a lot of doctors have come from other EU countries to work here. This has recently caused a scandal as trainee doctors from non-EU countries who qualify are having to apply for work visas that they might not automatically get.

If there are problems, a lot  can be traced back to the government's constant re-organisation of the structures and slavish aherence to targets like reducing waiting times without reference to clinical urgency.

If you look at the cost to the individual, it works out at about 16% of pay, split between employer and employee but that also includes payments for a basic retirement pension. Obviously the young, unemployed and those retired over 60/65 (the retirement age for women and men) do not make these payments. (The difference between these contributions and the actual costs are made up from general taxation) Drug costs are a flat £6.75 (around $12) per drug on a NHS prescription, free for the young, elderly and those on very low incomes. Pharmacies can also sell a number of drugs over the counter and dispense some items like the "morning after pill" without having to get a doctor's prescription.

While the system may not be perfect, it certainly offers a far higher proportion of the population virtual immediate access to advice and urgent treatment than in the USA. Of course there are differences. You might not get an MRI or CAT scan if a standard x-ray will provide an equally good diagnosis. On the other hand the Accident and Emergency Departments (Emergency rooms) are not clogged with the poor getting treatment for chronic illnesses. Apart from those in high risk groups, women do not get breast x-rays every year. (Rather more scandalously men do not get regular testing for prostate cancer. They are also far less likely to have very early operations for it, which may not be so bad if you consider most are very slow growing and quite frankly a  70 year old will die of other things before a newly diagnosed prostate cancer will kill them, plus they do not have to live with the common side-effects. The recommended practice now is not to give drugs for mild to moderate depression in the first instance. Self-help like exercise is likely to be suggested, then talking therapies offered and only if these do not work are drugs recommended. This NIHCE recommendation is fairly recent so the effects have not fully worked through the system yet. One important difference in the approach is that young people should not be given drugs except in very severe cases and then only certain very safe ones should be given. You may know that some of the anti-depressants have potentially fatal side-effects as they can produce inappropriate violent behaviour to either self harm or attack others.

by Londonbear on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 02:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor ENGLISH healthier than rich Americans (none / 0)
Regarding avoiding drugs if possible, our child has had mild cases of conjunctivitis twice in 18 months. The first time they gave him antibiotic eye drops, but the second time I was told 1) we should just throughly wash his eyes with water; 2) if after a couple of days it didn't get better we could go to the pharmacy (we have one right across the street, and several others within 15min walking or bussing distance) and get the antibiotic eye drop without a prescription. As we had reacted early, just washing his eyes with water worked.

I personally have an aversion to self-medication and like a doctor whose first reaction is not to prescribe antibiotics.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 04:26:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Poor Britons healthier than rich Americans | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: