There’s no “publish or die” “noise” for the BBC because their money comes from the TV License which anybody who sees live TV by any means (so, even from the Internet and even other channels) in Britain is legally obligated by Law to pay (it’s actually a Crime if they don’t) so they don’t really need to compete and are at no risk of dying.
This is just another article from the BBC preparing the plebes for another round of Bailouts For The Rich Austerity For The Rest, same as in 2008 Crash.
Just a couple of days ago they published an article from a Think Tank (i.e. a Technocratic Excuse Maker Funded By The Ultra-rich) about how things are going to get worse for people and they’ll have to tighten their belts.
The BBC is very much the Voice Of The British Elites and well known for their constant use of Manufacturing Consent techniques (their coverage of the Gaza Genocide is a particularly obvious recent example of that) so their motivations for chosing or not to publish something like this and how to frame it tend to be highly positivelly correlated with how to best serve the interests of said British Elites.
IMHO this article which is essentially about how eating the stuff you would normally throw away is actually good for your health, similarly to the recent one I mentioned above which was about how “everything was perfect and now hard times are coming through no fault of anybody and we just have to accept it” is about getting common people in a mindset to more easilly accept Austerity (and judging what happened in 2008-2018, that Austerity will be a direct consequence of government bailing the rich out and then refusing to increase taxes on said rich to pay for it and instead making everybody else pay for it).
I’m saying that the BBC chose to publish a story based on that paper from April instead of countless other stories and frame it as they did because it portrays the practices of the poor as being a good thing.
People don’t throw that stuff away because it’s unhealthy, they throw it away because it doesn’t taste as good as the rest and they do so because they can afford to throw out the unpleasant to eat parts to eat even if they’re nutritious.
It’s only the poor who don’t and they don’t because they have no other choice.
I don’t agree with that interpretation. It’s literally “people should be eating more fiber at the same time they’re throwing away a lot of fiber”.
Poor people aren’t scraping the food stores for dietary fiber or fretting about how they’ll afford a modest reduction in the long term risks of certain forms of colon disease.
For goodness sake, one of the tips is to make roast squash seeds. That’s not eating the unpalatable part, people buy those.
It’s not “eat like the poor” it’s “cook like a restaurant”. That thing you don’t need for this recipie is great for this other one.
I think you are both under and overestimating how much people know about cooking. People will trim off the better tasting parts of food and throw it away because it looks funny or isn’t there at a restaurant.
It looks funny because living organisms don’t have a lot of clean, straight lines and are often squishy and lumpy. The restaurant removes it because it’s too variable to cook without attention that’s too expensive to give, it’s too small for sale, or it simply messes up a clean presentation. So instead it gets quickly cooked and eaten by them, taken home by the chef, or added to soup or broth.
Being terrible at cooking and kitchen management cuts across economic lines.
Maybe that’s a very UK specific thing, because I come from a very poor Portuguese background and people ate pretty much EVERYTHING that could be eaten both animal and vegetable and my parents who grew up in deep poverty have it so ingrained that even today when they’re in their 80s and don’t at all need to do it, their “waste not” spirit remains strong and things like the hard tasteless bits of cabbage (which are definitely full of fiber given their texture) still end up in the pan with the rest.
Lack of culinary education?
It’s a significant driver of multigenerational health and dietary inequity. Poor people in urban areas have neither the time nor resources to cook properly, so they don’t. Then their children don’t learn, and the cycle gets worse. Obesity rates rise, health deteriorates, and the costs to manage that go up, making it harder and harder to break the cycle.
At least where I am, access to a variety of animals and vegetables is out of reach for those in poverty, and no one ever taught them what to do with them anyway.
So you end up with people eating mostly kraft macaroni, hot dogs and canned beans, cooked in a peeling Teflon pan and garnished with ketchup to taste.
Or maybe you have money, so you mostly eat takeout.
It’s why adult cooking classes are a thing that targets “entry level”, like how to cook eggs (the easy ways) or cut an onion, and food banks offer classes in how to cook the food they’re giving you. A potato is useless as food if you do not know how to cook a potato.
I don’t think “eat melon rinds because they have fiber” is quite the culinary education you seem to think it is.
I’m from Portugal, known for the Mediterranean Diet, and from what I see here compared to living in countries like Britain, culinary education is not about using the unpleasant parts of veggies for their fiber, it’s using fresh veggies in the first place.
That’s the problem I saw with the poor in Britain - they’ll eat lots of cheap carbs and not enough vegetables.
Using the unpleasant parts of the veggies for fiber (which is not a nutrient as the human body cannot break it up or absorb it, it’s just filling and keeps your digestive system clean) is just poverty.
This article is definitelly not about teaching people to eat the right things.
Did you read the article? Where they talk about fiber being for keeping the gut clean and most people not getting as much as they’re supposed to?
Do you think theyade these recipies or tips up from scratch? They’re all things that people eat and usually have for a long time.
By the rationale you seem to be using, there’s an ultierior motive to teaching people how to cook potatoes. After all, it’s unpleasant to eat until you cook it. Just like a watermelon rind is unpleasant to eat unless you pickle it. Just like squash seeds are gross unless you roast them like sunflower seeds.
it’s using fresh veggies in the first place.
Quite. And part of that is teaching people what parts you can and can’t eat.
Saying they’re trying to get people to eat garbage when the tips include eating my favorite part of broccoli just doesn’t land.
You’re seeing a class war narrative where I think it’s just a low effort report on a research paper and an attention grabbing headline and image.
Nah, none of what you’re saying is lost on me or something I didn’t know. I think you’re misinterpreting what we’re/at least I’m saying, given you just made that comment. But it’s cool, it’s good that you’re bringing this up, because it’s also important.
But not important in the context of the class war, of course, and genocides going on.
Nope. I meant they were both under and over estimating. I would have said “you both are …” Otherwise.
Are you saying that saying someone is creating a spurious class war narrative out of something benign is wrong to comment on because of class war and genocide?
There’s no “publish or die” “noise” for the BBC because their money comes from the TV License which anybody who sees live TV by any means (so, even from the Internet and even other channels) in Britain is legally obligated by Law to pay (it’s actually a Crime if they don’t) so they don’t really need to compete and are at no risk of dying.
This is just another article from the BBC preparing the plebes for another round of Bailouts For The Rich Austerity For The Rest, same as in 2008 Crash.
Just a couple of days ago they published an article from a Think Tank (i.e. a Technocratic Excuse Maker Funded By The Ultra-rich) about how things are going to get worse for people and they’ll have to tighten their belts.
The BBC is very much the Voice Of The British Elites and well known for their constant use of Manufacturing Consent techniques (their coverage of the Gaza Genocide is a particularly obvious recent example of that) so their motivations for chosing or not to publish something like this and how to frame it tend to be highly positivelly correlated with how to best serve the interests of said British Elites.
IMHO this article which is essentially about how eating the stuff you would normally throw away is actually good for your health, similarly to the recent one I mentioned above which was about how “everything was perfect and now hard times are coming through no fault of anybody and we just have to accept it” is about getting common people in a mindset to more easilly accept Austerity (and judging what happened in 2008-2018, that Austerity will be a direct consequence of government bailing the rich out and then refusing to increase taxes on said rich to pay for it and instead making everybody else pay for it).
Hm? Are you saying these guys work for the BBC?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09637486.2026.2734852
I’m not sure I follow your logic.
I’m saying that the BBC chose to publish a story based on that paper from April instead of countless other stories and frame it as they did because it portrays the practices of the poor as being a good thing.
People don’t throw that stuff away because it’s unhealthy, they throw it away because it doesn’t taste as good as the rest and they do so because they can afford to throw out the unpleasant to eat parts to eat even if they’re nutritious.
It’s only the poor who don’t and they don’t because they have no other choice.
I don’t agree with that interpretation. It’s literally “people should be eating more fiber at the same time they’re throwing away a lot of fiber”.
Poor people aren’t scraping the food stores for dietary fiber or fretting about how they’ll afford a modest reduction in the long term risks of certain forms of colon disease.
For goodness sake, one of the tips is to make roast squash seeds. That’s not eating the unpalatable part, people buy those.
It’s not “eat like the poor” it’s “cook like a restaurant”. That thing you don’t need for this recipie is great for this other one.
I think you are both under and overestimating how much people know about cooking. People will trim off the better tasting parts of food and throw it away because it looks funny or isn’t there at a restaurant.
It looks funny because living organisms don’t have a lot of clean, straight lines and are often squishy and lumpy. The restaurant removes it because it’s too variable to cook without attention that’s too expensive to give, it’s too small for sale, or it simply messes up a clean presentation. So instead it gets quickly cooked and eaten by them, taken home by the chef, or added to soup or broth.
Being terrible at cooking and kitchen management cuts across economic lines.
Maybe that’s a very UK specific thing, because I come from a very poor Portuguese background and people ate pretty much EVERYTHING that could be eaten both animal and vegetable and my parents who grew up in deep poverty have it so ingrained that even today when they’re in their 80s and don’t at all need to do it, their “waste not” spirit remains strong and things like the hard tasteless bits of cabbage (which are definitely full of fiber given their texture) still end up in the pan with the rest.
Lack of culinary education? It’s a significant driver of multigenerational health and dietary inequity. Poor people in urban areas have neither the time nor resources to cook properly, so they don’t. Then their children don’t learn, and the cycle gets worse. Obesity rates rise, health deteriorates, and the costs to manage that go up, making it harder and harder to break the cycle.
At least where I am, access to a variety of animals and vegetables is out of reach for those in poverty, and no one ever taught them what to do with them anyway.
So you end up with people eating mostly kraft macaroni, hot dogs and canned beans, cooked in a peeling Teflon pan and garnished with ketchup to taste. Or maybe you have money, so you mostly eat takeout.
It’s why adult cooking classes are a thing that targets “entry level”, like how to cook eggs (the easy ways) or cut an onion, and food banks offer classes in how to cook the food they’re giving you. A potato is useless as food if you do not know how to cook a potato.
I don’t think “eat melon rinds because they have fiber” is quite the culinary education you seem to think it is.
I’m from Portugal, known for the Mediterranean Diet, and from what I see here compared to living in countries like Britain, culinary education is not about using the unpleasant parts of veggies for their fiber, it’s using fresh veggies in the first place.
That’s the problem I saw with the poor in Britain - they’ll eat lots of cheap carbs and not enough vegetables.
Using the unpleasant parts of the veggies for fiber (which is not a nutrient as the human body cannot break it up or absorb it, it’s just filling and keeps your digestive system clean) is just poverty.
This article is definitelly not about teaching people to eat the right things.
Did you read the article? Where they talk about fiber being for keeping the gut clean and most people not getting as much as they’re supposed to?
Do you think theyade these recipies or tips up from scratch? They’re all things that people eat and usually have for a long time.
By the rationale you seem to be using, there’s an ultierior motive to teaching people how to cook potatoes. After all, it’s unpleasant to eat until you cook it. Just like a watermelon rind is unpleasant to eat unless you pickle it. Just like squash seeds are gross unless you roast them like sunflower seeds.
Quite. And part of that is teaching people what parts you can and can’t eat.
Saying they’re trying to get people to eat garbage when the tips include eating my favorite part of broccoli just doesn’t land.
You’re seeing a class war narrative where I think it’s just a low effort report on a research paper and an attention grabbing headline and image.
Nah, none of what you’re saying is lost on me or something I didn’t know. I think you’re misinterpreting what we’re/at least I’m saying, given you just made that comment. But it’s cool, it’s good that you’re bringing this up, because it’s also important.
But not important in the context of the class war, of course, and genocides going on.
I’m honestly asking: did you reply to the wrong comment in the thread? You’re not the person I replied to.
Otherwise I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
You said, “you are both under and overestimating”, so I assume you were addressing me, too?
Nope. I meant they were both under and over estimating. I would have said “you both are …” Otherwise.
Are you saying that saying someone is creating a spurious class war narrative out of something benign is wrong to comment on because of class war and genocide?
Okie dokie. Apologies. 🙇♂️