Type: Beauty Title: Neutrogena Norwegian Formula Hand Cream, Fragrance-Free, 2 Ounce (Pack of 4) See all customer reviews Product Description: Concentrated relief for dry chapped hands. Dermatologist recommended. Neutrogena Norwegian Formula Hand Cream delivers effective relief for dry, chapped hands. It is so concentrated that only a small amount instantly leaves dry hands noticeably softer and smoother after just one application. Used daily, it helps prevent dry, chapped skin – even under the harshest of conditions. It started with Norwegian fisherman. Faced with some of the harshest, coldest weather on earth, they used a formula that delivers concentrated levels of glycerin to dry, chapped skin providing immediate and lasting relief. Five years of independent clinical testing confirm what the fishermen knew all along – Norwegian Formula Hand Cream consistently outperforms other products. Just a little goes a long way. This 2 oz tube contains over 200 applications. Made in USA. Features: Provides concentrated relief for dry chapped hands Only a small amount instantly leaves dry hands noticeably softer and smoother Use daily to help prevent dry, chapped skin even under the harshest of conditions Fragrance-free, dermatologist-recommended Please read all label information on delivery See the details
Continue reading …Sydney GTUG for Google I/O 2011 Google I/O 2010 – Where is the societal web active next? GTUG BarCamp @ Google I/O 2011 Android Community covering Google I/O | Android Community The time is almost here for Google I/O . Beginning tomorrow, the annual Google confab will run through Wednesday and Android Community will be there to cover. Google I/O Preview – SuperSite Blog With Google’s annual Google I/O set to kick off tomorrow, there’s been a lot of speculation in the tech press and blogosphere about what the company will announ. We'll be live from Google I/O 2011! | BGR Google’s I/O developer conference kicks off tomorrow in San Francsico with the company’s keynote, and we’ll be covering it live. Make sure to tune in tomorrow at 12PM ET for all the action coming to you live. We’ll be sure to see whole … Google confirms that this year's Google I/O will be all about … Google confirms that this year’s Google I/O will be all about Android. Just in case you had any doubt that this year’s Google I/O is going to be all about Android all the time, Google just went ahead and cleared that up for you. … Google I/O T-shirt puzzle: Androidify yourself with the official … Are you excited to see what Google I/O has in store for us? Or better yet, are you excited to be at Google I/O ? If you have gotten a hold of one of Google’s official event t-shirts, you would know that there is a puzzle on the back of … Alltop_Mobile says: Google I/O 2011 kicks off tomorrow, get your liveblog right here! http://bit.ly/lIPehH
Continue reading …We’re awash with TV chefs, recipe books and health campaigns, but how well are we eating – and what does our food say about us? Jon Henley sits down to dinner in five British homes In a polished but well-used kitchen in west London, Anna is cooking supper. It’s organic salmon, Asian-style, a variation on a Jamie Oliver recipe: grilled fillets of fresh pink fish served with beansprouts, cucumber, ribboned carrot, mango, coriander and a whizzy dressing, topped with lightly toasted cashew nuts and agave nectar. And this, note, is an ordinary weekday evening. Anna and her boyfriend Karl are back after 7pm from a full day’s work and this, they promise, is entirely representative of how they eat. Karl, who mostly does the weekend cooking, can’t suppress a smile. He is, he concedes, a lucky man. “Anna’s obsessed by food,” he says. “Constantly reading cookbooks, wanting to try things out. On me!” Before he knew her, he says, he was deluded enough to think he was eating healthily. “But I had no idea of the quantity of natural sugar in my diet, or the carbs.” He has learned “a huge amount”, he says, and feels “better. Really, so much better. Healthier. What we eat is just so important.” It’s a truism, of course: our food matters. We have long understood this. Bad food does us no good. Back in 1875, in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Friedrich Engels asserted bluntly that a diet of potatoes and weak tea “unavoidably engenders a multitude of diseases”. So why is it that so many of us still don’t get it? Why, amid the welter of TV chefs, cookery books and healthy-eating plans, of five-a-day campaigns and supermarket traffic-light labels, do so many of us still eat so poorly? Partly, of course, it’s about money: healthy food, in general, costs more than unhealthy food, sometimes a lot more. The quickest and cheapest way to get 100 calories of food energy into your body is through sugars, fats and processed starches. The most nutritious food – fruits, fresh vegetables, lean meats, fish, grains – are, for many, too expensive. Three years ago Tim Lobstein, director of childhood research at the International Association for the Study of Obesity , looked at the cost of getting those 100 calories from various types of food. One hundred calories-worth of broccoli, he found, cost 51p, whereas 100 calories of frozen chips cost 2p. Good quality, lean, meat-filled sausages were 22p per 100 calories; cheap, fatty ones 4p. Fresh orange juice would yield 100 calories of food energy for 38p, while sugar-saturated squash would do the same for 5p. Big food, our all-powerful western food industry – which long ago discovered, as the American writer and real-food campaigner Michael Pollan says, that “the more a food is processed, the more profitable it gets” – is at least partly to blame here. “Essentially,” Pollan says succinctly, “the system we have evolved is based around wealthy farmers feeding the poor crap, cheap food, and poor farmers feeding the wealthy high-quality, expensive food.” Food poverty, as a result, has moved on from Victorian times, when all much of the population could afford to eat was bread and potatoes. These days, people on lower-than-average incomes suffer from poor access to healthy food; as Martin Caraher and Elizabeth Dowler of City and Warwick universities, co-authors of Challenging Food Inequalities , point out: “It’s more often a problem of dietary imbalance than under-nourishment.” That’s not just because healthier food is more expensive (it isn’t, always), but also because it is harder to get. Big supermarkets offering a wide variety of quality foods at fair prices are not thick on the ground in deprived inner cities, favouring wealthier suburbs and out-of-town sites for car-owning customers. And shopping from convenience and corner stores can cost up to 13% more for a nutritionally adequate diet, the academics found. The consequences? Illnesses related to poor diet – including obesity, anaemia, diabetes, raised blood pressure, heart and vascular disease, strokes and cancers of the stomach and oesophagus – all tend to be more prevalent in low-income groups. But it’s by no means always about money. A 2007 Food Standards Agency survey found that better-off people were eating ever greater quantities of junk, fast and processed food too: when we’re tired or it’s late or we just can’t be bothered, restaurants, takeaways and ready meals are easier and quicker. Whatever Jamie says. (Plus, sugary, fatty and processed foods taste really good.) And the flip side of that same expense coin is that it is perfectly possible, with skill and imagination, to eat healthily for not very much money. But you need energy and determination and to really understand and care about what you eat. These days, of course, caring about what you eat is not just about ingesting food that will do you good (or at least, food that won’t do you too much harm). It means – again, providing you have the means – thinking about where your food comes from and how it’s grown: is it free-range, fairtrade, organic? Locally grown, minimum food miles? Has it been sustainably caught, humanely raised, non-GM farmed? Is it from a small-scale, independent producer or a big-food multinational monolith? Will the grower get a fair return for his produce, or is an evil supermarket chain constantly driving down prices? All of which means that real awareness of what we eat – food that is better for us, and for the environment – is essentially a middle-class preoccupation. Sociologists agree that most people who eat badly do so not because they are uninformed about nutrition, nor because they live too far from a decent supermarket, but because bad food costs less, and tastes good. And so food has become, more than ever, one of the main indicators of social and class distinction in our society. If we’re well-off, we’re more likely to eat well: fresh, unprocessed, nutritious, locally produced, bought at a farmers’ market or small independent supplier. (We may also, of course, choose not to eat well, for reasons of time and convenience.) If we’re not well off, we’re more likely to eat badly: preserved, processed, high in sugar, fat and starch, mass-produced, bought from a convenience store or deep-discounter. (We may also, of course, be poor yet choose to make eating well our top priority). “Tell me what you eat, and I’ll tell you what you are,” wrote the early 19th-century French writer and gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Here, five households do just that. The single mother: Sheila Gumbi “It shocks me that some parents don’t take the time to cook,” says Sheila Gumbi. “When I see the things they feed their children . . . It’s not the way I was brought up.” Sheila, 32, was born in Malawi and now lives in a rundown flat on the South Acton estate, one of Europe’s largest. She works part-time for a local charity, volunteers at the community centre and, with wages and benefits, gets by with her 13-year-old son Tyrone on £120 a week. “I’m constantly having to juggle,” she says, preparing a chicken and prawn curry, with vegetable rice and salad, in her clean if crumbling kitchen (she hopes to be rehoused soon). “I have been in a position where I’ve had to decide: do I buy food, or do I pay this bill? I hate it, but that does sometimes mean it’s tinned food for me and my boy.” Generally, though, Sheila can buy pretty much the food she needs, spending maybe £50 a week. On Fridays, when she works late, there might be a takeaway or a frozen ready meal from Iceland, although to avoid that she’ll often cook big the night before. Otherwise, it’s home-cooked and fresh every day: fufu (a thick African paste of maize meal), fish, curries (goat meat when she can), stir-fries, big thick dumpling soups, shepherd’s pie, lasagne, macaroni cheese. Dessert is always fruit, some from a part-time stall Sheila runs on the estate. Tonight’s sauce is from a jar; at weekends she makes her own. Dinner is at 5.30pm sharp, eaten with Ty on the sofa. “There’s no room here for a table,” Sheila apologises. “It’s really not good. Eating isn’t just about food, it’s about sitting down together, round a table.” Tyrone, no mean cook himself, is on free school meals. “I don’t like to bring money into it,” says Sheila. “But I know other mothers on benefits, with three children, they get more money than me, a lot more, but they’re always struggling because they only eat convenience foods.” The very best food is, she shrugs, impossible. “Will I pay £12 for a chicken that will give just two servings?” she says. “No I won’t. I could feed two of us for two days for £12. I’d like to buy free-range eggs. I’d love to have a big pot and put a lobster in it. I’ll buy really good food if I have the money: I want to give my boy the best. But it’s not always.” Every day Sheila blesses her parents, who “brought me up healthy: they gave me the knowledge of food, made me confident in the kitchen. There’s no such thing as can’t, you know. There are just different priorities.” The young couple: Anna King & Karl Walker “I think the main problem,” says Anna King, a nutritional therapist , “is that most people simply don’t realise how important what we eat is. We wait till we’re obese or very ill – with cancer, cardiovascular disease – before we change our diets.” Anna, 31, and her partner Karl Walker, 34, a sustainability consultant, are unabashed foodies. These days, some of the cooking Anna does at home is professional: she is planning and testing menus for clients. But, she confesses, she has always “loved food. Just adored it. It’s a huge part of my life”. The west-London couple spend £70-£75 a week on food shopping: a weekly online shop at Ocado, topped up with organic staples from the local wholefood store – hummus, oatcakes, bee pollen, agave. They eat little red meat, once or twice a week, and no takeaways. Fish is sustainably caught or organically farmed, if possible; fruit and vegetables are bought locally. “I’m very conscious of carbon miles,” says Karl. “We always go for English when we can, and organic. With things like mangoes, of course, that’s not possible. It’s hard sometimes to get what you want.” Breakfast is organic granola with natural yoghurt and fruit for Karl; a homemade shake of berries, yoghurt and assorted ultra-nutritious (but top-secret) ingredients for Anna, who also tries to make herself a home-whizzed juice (fruit and/or veg) every day. Lunches, on weekdays, are soups, salads and often leftovers from last night’s supper. Tonight’s supper was that organic salmon, Asian style. Dessert was berries, strawberries, yoghurt, mint, crushed nuts and agave. It was utterly delicious. It’s a myth, says Anna, that eating well is expensive. “You can eat healthily for very little: lentils, salads, sprouts. People say they never have the time, but it’s not difficult at all. Tins of chickpeas, tomatoes: I do a very good stew with those plus kale and a tiny bit of chorizo.” They resent food-industry manipulation: “Even probiotic yoghurts are chock full of sugar. There’s a lot of misrepresentation. It’s all low-fat this, low-calorie that, and precious little of it is natural.” Food, says Karl, “is political. It is a question of choices.” Anna’s line is simple: “There are lots of things in this world we can’t control. I find it really empowering that I can control my health and the way I feel through what I eat.” The pensioner: Maurice Nadeem “The thing is,” says Maurice Nadeem, “I don’t actually cook. My wife was a very good cook, you see, she used to do all the cooking. And there was the mess. So now what I do is, I put things in the microwave, really.” Maurice will be 82 this year. He served in the Royal Pakistan Air Force and then for five years with the RAF (“I was told I was the first Pakistani to be commissioned,” he says, proudly) before studying law at Leeds university in the 1960s, where Jack Straw was among his classmates. He practised as a London solicitor before retiring. Maurice has never cooked for himself. He was catered for in his service days and used to adore his wife’s curries, he says; he would still enjoy a really good proper home-cooked curry more than anything in the world if he could. Sadly, he finds them too strong for him these days. So he shops at the supermarket nearest his central-London home, a Waitrose, where he buys essentially ready-cooked meals, often Indian, which he reheats. There’s also bread, crackers, cheese, eggs, canned soups and plenty of fresh fruit. Understandably, this is not cheap: Maurice spends maybe £100 a week on food, sometimes as much as £120. Breakfast is “quite filling”: two slices of toast, a boiled egg, two cocktail sausages and two bananas. He generally skips lunch, or if he’s feeling peckish may make himself a cheese sandwich or heat up a can of tomato soup. A dedicated committee man throughout his life, he remains sociable, going most Mondays to a local day centre for older people. Maurice’s main meal of the day is at 4pm. His regular is microwaved chicken biryani: a hint of curry, but mild enough for his digestion. He says his service background has instilled in him the importance of personal fitness: “I eat what I need and no more; I drink in strict moderation; I make sure always to have plenty of fruit. And I take a brisk three-mile walk every day. That’s discipline. Old habits die hard.” Maurice thinks he eats pretty well, although he’d like to do a bit of cooking for himself. “Waitrose has cooking lessons,” he says. “I might try. It’s never too late, is it?” The three-child family: The Booth-Farmers “We used to buy organic when our first child was born, but it’s just ridiculously expensive now,” says Catherine Farmer. “In fact, we did an experiment a while back,” says her husband, Giles Booth. “Everything we used to buy that was organic or from the supermarket premium range, we bought from the value range instead. To see what exactly we could live with.” It’s expensive, life with three children, especially if you want to feed them well. And Catherine, 43, a radio producer, and Giles, 44, a studio manager, will have to be more careful in future: she is soon to lose her job. Food is important to the Booth-Farmers and their children, Henry, 11, William, eight, and Tilly, five. “We do try to cook fresh every day,” says Catherine, over chilli in the family kitchen in Lewisham. “Pasta, curries, that kind of thing. On Sundays we roast a chicken that will do for sandwiches on Monday, and curry or a pie. Then for stock. We try.” Buying no ready meals bar pizza for the kids, once a week, and just the occasional takeaway (fish and chips of a Friday night), the family spends £600 a month on food: “Stupid amounts, really,” says Catherine. “It’s definitely getting more expensive. And I don’t think we’re extravagant, or wasteful. Not many people still boil up a chicken stock.” They have an allotment in Greenwich for potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, sweetcorn, cabbage and the rest – and freeze a lot. The Booth-Farmers’ recent cost-cutting exercise showed them they can live with cheap, value-range beans, canned tomatoes and biscuits (though not smoked salmon, ice-cream or ketchup. Nor, says Giles, will he sacrifice his Maldon sea salt). If they have to cut back more, it’ll probably mean Asda rather than Sainsbury’s. They are particularly conscious of food for their children’s health: when he was born, doctors feared Henry might go on to develop diabetes, so babyfoods were homemade from the start. Catherine campaigned hard a few years ago to improve the children’s “really appalling” school dinners, and they now go off with lunchboxes of (for example) brown-bread ham sandwiches and grapes, or last night’s supper in a food flask. “We really like our food, and we both really like cooking,” says Giles, who, in his spare time, runs a delightful (and useful) blog ( suppertime.co.uk ) of short, simple everyday family recipes. “We’re not foodies. But good food is a real priority.” The flatsharers: Kieren Eyles and Mike McGrath “OK,” says Kieren Eyles. “Here’s a new house rule: if you use a chopping board, you have to clean it up after.” Undeterred, his flatmate Mike McGrath responds: “And I think you’d find it would be better, mate, if you used the old parmesan first.” Kieren, 32, who used to work in the pub business but is waiting on a PhD application, and Mike, 31, a fundraiser for a microfinance charity, share a flat in Wandsworth. They cook and eat together most nights if they’re in; tonight, it’s spaghetti carbonara with fresh steamed spinach and peas. Both like their food. They do a communal online shop for £90-£100 every three weeks or so (“Sunday afternoon,” says Mike, “you should see us”), topped up with maybe £50 a week between them on fresh produce: probably £40 a week each on food, in all. “I do have to be careful,” says Mike. “Food’s a big chunk of my budget.” Attitudes to eating among twenty- and thirtysomethings have changed a lot over the past 10-15 years, Mike reckons: “Generally, I think people are much more aware. One friend used to eat nothing but stir-fried sausages and supernoodles, and now cooks amazing stuff, three different kinds of naan bread. And another house I lived in, they only ate junk food. They’ve stopped that now; a conscious decision.” Mike, whose dad is “sports mad” and whose mum was a cookery teacher, makes a big effort to eat healthily, although he confesses to being “a bit partial to the naughty stuff. You know, chocolate and all that. And I’m from Birkenhead. So I like my pies and my pasties.” Kieren says they always aim for five-a-day “or more”, and “we’re very good about fruit”. Their favourite dishes? Mike says he’s “big into curries and stews, and stir-fries”. Kieren says he makes a mean chocolate fondant with berry compote. Dinner parties, they modestly agree, can be “quite awesome”. That’s all quite embarrassing, says Mike: “You’d better not say it was me who talked about berry compote.” Food & drink Health & wellbeing Health Family Jon Henley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …We’re awash with TV chefs, recipe books and health campaigns, but how well are we eating – and what does our food say about us? Jon Henley sits down to dinner in five British homes In a polished but well-used kitchen in west London, Anna is cooking supper. It’s organic salmon, Asian-style, a variation on a Jamie Oliver recipe: grilled fillets of fresh pink fish served with beansprouts, cucumber, ribboned carrot, mango, coriander and a whizzy dressing, topped with lightly toasted cashew nuts and agave nectar. And this, note, is an ordinary weekday evening. Anna and her boyfriend Karl are back after 7pm from a full day’s work and this, they promise, is entirely representative of how they eat. Karl, who mostly does the weekend cooking, can’t suppress a smile. He is, he concedes, a lucky man. “Anna’s obsessed by food,” he says. “Constantly reading cookbooks, wanting to try things out. On me!” Before he knew her, he says, he was deluded enough to think he was eating healthily. “But I had no idea of the quantity of natural sugar in my diet, or the carbs.” He has learned “a huge amount”, he says, and feels “better. Really, so much better. Healthier. What we eat is just so important.” It’s a truism, of course: our food matters. We have long understood this. Bad food does us no good. Back in 1875, in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Friedrich Engels asserted bluntly that a diet of potatoes and weak tea “unavoidably engenders a multitude of diseases”. So why is it that so many of us still don’t get it? Why, amid the welter of TV chefs, cookery books and healthy-eating plans, of five-a-day campaigns and supermarket traffic-light labels, do so many of us still eat so poorly? Partly, of course, it’s about money: healthy food, in general, costs more than unhealthy food, sometimes a lot more. The quickest and cheapest way to get 100 calories of food energy into your body is through sugars, fats and processed starches. The most nutritious food – fruits, fresh vegetables, lean meats, fish, grains – are, for many, too expensive. Three years ago Tim Lobstein, director of childhood research at the International Association for the Study of Obesity , looked at the cost of getting those 100 calories from various types of food. One hundred calories-worth of broccoli, he found, cost 51p, whereas 100 calories of frozen chips cost 2p. Good quality, lean, meat-filled sausages were 22p per 100 calories; cheap, fatty ones 4p. Fresh orange juice would yield 100 calories of food energy for 38p, while sugar-saturated squash would do the same for 5p. Big food, our all-powerful western food industry – which long ago discovered, as the American writer and real-food campaigner Michael Pollan says, that “the more a food is processed, the more profitable it gets” – is at least partly to blame here. “Essentially,” Pollan says succinctly, “the system we have evolved is based around wealthy farmers feeding the poor crap, cheap food, and poor farmers feeding the wealthy high-quality, expensive food.” Food poverty, as a result, has moved on from Victorian times, when all much of the population could afford to eat was bread and potatoes. These days, people on lower-than-average incomes suffer from poor access to healthy food; as Martin Caraher and Elizabeth Dowler of City and Warwick universities, co-authors of Challenging Food Inequalities , point out: “It’s more often a problem of dietary imbalance than under-nourishment.” That’s not just because healthier food is more expensive (it isn’t, always), but also because it is harder to get. Big supermarkets offering a wide variety of quality foods at fair prices are not thick on the ground in deprived inner cities, favouring wealthier suburbs and out-of-town sites for car-owning customers. And shopping from convenience and corner stores can cost up to 13% more for a nutritionally adequate diet, the academics found. The consequences? Illnesses related to poor diet – including obesity, anaemia, diabetes, raised blood pressure, heart and vascular disease, strokes and cancers of the stomach and oesophagus – all tend to be more prevalent in low-income groups. But it’s by no means always about money. A 2007 Food Standards Agency survey found that better-off people were eating ever greater quantities of junk, fast and processed food too: when we’re tired or it’s late or we just can’t be bothered, restaurants, takeaways and ready meals are easier and quicker. Whatever Jamie says. (Plus, sugary, fatty and processed foods taste really good.) And the flip side of that same expense coin is that it is perfectly possible, with skill and imagination, to eat healthily for not very much money. But you need energy and determination and to really understand and care about what you eat. These days, of course, caring about what you eat is not just about ingesting food that will do you good (or at least, food that won’t do you too much harm). It means – again, providing you have the means – thinking about where your food comes from and how it’s grown: is it free-range, fairtrade, organic? Locally grown, minimum food miles? Has it been sustainably caught, humanely raised, non-GM farmed? Is it from a small-scale, independent producer or a big-food multinational monolith? Will the grower get a fair return for his produce, or is an evil supermarket chain constantly driving down prices? All of which means that real awareness of what we eat – food that is better for us, and for the environment – is essentially a middle-class preoccupation. Sociologists agree that most people who eat badly do so not because they are uninformed about nutrition, nor because they live too far from a decent supermarket, but because bad food costs less, and tastes good. And so food has become, more than ever, one of the main indicators of social and class distinction in our society. If we’re well-off, we’re more likely to eat well: fresh, unprocessed, nutritious, locally produced, bought at a farmers’ market or small independent supplier. (We may also, of course, choose not to eat well, for reasons of time and convenience.) If we’re not well off, we’re more likely to eat badly: preserved, processed, high in sugar, fat and starch, mass-produced, bought from a convenience store or deep-discounter. (We may also, of course, be poor yet choose to make eating well our top priority). “Tell me what you eat, and I’ll tell you what you are,” wrote the early 19th-century French writer and gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Here, five households do just that. The single mother: Sheila Gumbi “It shocks me that some parents don’t take the time to cook,” says Sheila Gumbi. “When I see the things they feed their children . . . It’s not the way I was brought up.” Sheila, 32, was born in Malawi and now lives in a rundown flat on the South Acton estate, one of Europe’s largest. She works part-time for a local charity, volunteers at the community centre and, with wages and benefits, gets by with her 13-year-old son Tyrone on £120 a week. “I’m constantly having to juggle,” she says, preparing a chicken and prawn curry, with vegetable rice and salad, in her clean if crumbling kitchen (she hopes to be rehoused soon). “I have been in a position where I’ve had to decide: do I buy food, or do I pay this bill? I hate it, but that does sometimes mean it’s tinned food for me and my boy.” Generally, though, Sheila can buy pretty much the food she needs, spending maybe £50 a week. On Fridays, when she works late, there might be a takeaway or a frozen ready meal from Iceland, although to avoid that she’ll often cook big the night before. Otherwise, it’s home-cooked and fresh every day: fufu (a thick African paste of maize meal), fish, curries (goat meat when she can), stir-fries, big thick dumpling soups, shepherd’s pie, lasagne, macaroni cheese. Dessert is always fruit, some from a part-time stall Sheila runs on the estate. Tonight’s sauce is from a jar; at weekends she makes her own. Dinner is at 5.30pm sharp, eaten with Ty on the sofa. “There’s no room here for a table,” Sheila apologises. “It’s really not good. Eating isn’t just about food, it’s about sitting down together, round a table.” Tyrone, no mean cook himself, is on free school meals. “I don’t like to bring money into it,” says Sheila. “But I know other mothers on benefits, with three children, they get more money than me, a lot more, but they’re always struggling because they only eat convenience foods.” The very best food is, she shrugs, impossible. “Will I pay £12 for a chicken that will give just two servings?” she says. “No I won’t. I could feed two of us for two days for £12. I’d like to buy free-range eggs. I’d love to have a big pot and put a lobster in it. I’ll buy really good food if I have the money: I want to give my boy the best. But it’s not always.” Every day Sheila blesses her parents, who “brought me up healthy: they gave me the knowledge of food, made me confident in the kitchen. There’s no such thing as can’t, you know. There are just different priorities.” The young couple: Anna King & Karl Walker “I think the main problem,” says Anna King, a nutritional therapist , “is that most people simply don’t realise how important what we eat is. We wait till we’re obese or very ill – with cancer, cardiovascular disease – before we change our diets.” Anna, 31, and her partner Karl Walker, 34, a sustainability consultant, are unabashed foodies. These days, some of the cooking Anna does at home is professional: she is planning and testing menus for clients. But, she confesses, she has always “loved food. Just adored it. It’s a huge part of my life”. The west-London couple spend £70-£75 a week on food shopping: a weekly online shop at Ocado, topped up with organic staples from the local wholefood store – hummus, oatcakes, bee pollen, agave. They eat little red meat, once or twice a week, and no takeaways. Fish is sustainably caught or organically farmed, if possible; fruit and vegetables are bought locally. “I’m very conscious of carbon miles,” says Karl. “We always go for English when we can, and organic. With things like mangoes, of course, that’s not possible. It’s hard sometimes to get what you want.” Breakfast is organic granola with natural yoghurt and fruit for Karl; a homemade shake of berries, yoghurt and assorted ultra-nutritious (but top-secret) ingredients for Anna, who also tries to make herself a home-whizzed juice (fruit and/or veg) every day. Lunches, on weekdays, are soups, salads and often leftovers from last night’s supper. Tonight’s supper was that organic salmon, Asian style. Dessert was berries, strawberries, yoghurt, mint, crushed nuts and agave. It was utterly delicious. It’s a myth, says Anna, that eating well is expensive. “You can eat healthily for very little: lentils, salads, sprouts. People say they never have the time, but it’s not difficult at all. Tins of chickpeas, tomatoes: I do a very good stew with those plus kale and a tiny bit of chorizo.” They resent food-industry manipulation: “Even probiotic yoghurts are chock full of sugar. There’s a lot of misrepresentation. It’s all low-fat this, low-calorie that, and precious little of it is natural.” Food, says Karl, “is political. It is a question of choices.” Anna’s line is simple: “There are lots of things in this world we can’t control. I find it really empowering that I can control my health and the way I feel through what I eat.” The pensioner: Maurice Nadeem “The thing is,” says Maurice Nadeem, “I don’t actually cook. My wife was a very good cook, you see, she used to do all the cooking. And there was the mess. So now what I do is, I put things in the microwave, really.” Maurice will be 82 this year. He served in the Royal Pakistan Air Force and then for five years with the RAF (“I was told I was the first Pakistani to be commissioned,” he says, proudly) before studying law at Leeds university in the 1960s, where Jack Straw was among his classmates. He practised as a London solicitor before retiring. Maurice has never cooked for himself. He was catered for in his service days and used to adore his wife’s curries, he says; he would still enjoy a really good proper home-cooked curry more than anything in the world if he could. Sadly, he finds them too strong for him these days. So he shops at the supermarket nearest his central-London home, a Waitrose, where he buys essentially ready-cooked meals, often Indian, which he reheats. There’s also bread, crackers, cheese, eggs, canned soups and plenty of fresh fruit. Understandably, this is not cheap: Maurice spends maybe £100 a week on food, sometimes as much as £120. Breakfast is “quite filling”: two slices of toast, a boiled egg, two cocktail sausages and two bananas. He generally skips lunch, or if he’s feeling peckish may make himself a cheese sandwich or heat up a can of tomato soup. A dedicated committee man throughout his life, he remains sociable, going most Mondays to a local day centre for older people. Maurice’s main meal of the day is at 4pm. His regular is microwaved chicken biryani: a hint of curry, but mild enough for his digestion. He says his service background has instilled in him the importance of personal fitness: “I eat what I need and no more; I drink in strict moderation; I make sure always to have plenty of fruit. And I take a brisk three-mile walk every day. That’s discipline. Old habits die hard.” Maurice thinks he eats pretty well, although he’d like to do a bit of cooking for himself. “Waitrose has cooking lessons,” he says. “I might try. It’s never too late, is it?” The three-child family: The Booth-Farmers “We used to buy organic when our first child was born, but it’s just ridiculously expensive now,” says Catherine Farmer. “In fact, we did an experiment a while back,” says her husband, Giles Booth. “Everything we used to buy that was organic or from the supermarket premium range, we bought from the value range instead. To see what exactly we could live with.” It’s expensive, life with three children, especially if you want to feed them well. And Catherine, 43, a radio producer, and Giles, 44, a studio manager, will have to be more careful in future: she is soon to lose her job. Food is important to the Booth-Farmers and their children, Henry, 11, William, eight, and Tilly, five. “We do try to cook fresh every day,” says Catherine, over chilli in the family kitchen in Lewisham. “Pasta, curries, that kind of thing. On Sundays we roast a chicken that will do for sandwiches on Monday, and curry or a pie. Then for stock. We try.” Buying no ready meals bar pizza for the kids, once a week, and just the occasional takeaway (fish and chips of a Friday night), the family spends £600 a month on food: “Stupid amounts, really,” says Catherine. “It’s definitely getting more expensive. And I don’t think we’re extravagant, or wasteful. Not many people still boil up a chicken stock.” They have an allotment in Greenwich for potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, sweetcorn, cabbage and the rest – and freeze a lot. The Booth-Farmers’ recent cost-cutting exercise showed them they can live with cheap, value-range beans, canned tomatoes and biscuits (though not smoked salmon, ice-cream or ketchup. Nor, says Giles, will he sacrifice his Maldon sea salt). If they have to cut back more, it’ll probably mean Asda rather than Sainsbury’s. They are particularly conscious of food for their children’s health: when he was born, doctors feared Henry might go on to develop diabetes, so babyfoods were homemade from the start. Catherine campaigned hard a few years ago to improve the children’s “really appalling” school dinners, and they now go off with lunchboxes of (for example) brown-bread ham sandwiches and grapes, or last night’s supper in a food flask. “We really like our food, and we both really like cooking,” says Giles, who, in his spare time, runs a delightful (and useful) blog ( suppertime.co.uk ) of short, simple everyday family recipes. “We’re not foodies. But good food is a real priority.” The flatsharers: Kieren Eyles and Mike McGrath “OK,” says Kieren Eyles. “Here’s a new house rule: if you use a chopping board, you have to clean it up after.” Undeterred, his flatmate Mike McGrath responds: “And I think you’d find it would be better, mate, if you used the old parmesan first.” Kieren, 32, who used to work in the pub business but is waiting on a PhD application, and Mike, 31, a fundraiser for a microfinance charity, share a flat in Wandsworth. They cook and eat together most nights if they’re in; tonight, it’s spaghetti carbonara with fresh steamed spinach and peas. Both like their food. They do a communal online shop for £90-£100 every three weeks or so (“Sunday afternoon,” says Mike, “you should see us”), topped up with maybe £50 a week between them on fresh produce: probably £40 a week each on food, in all. “I do have to be careful,” says Mike. “Food’s a big chunk of my budget.” Attitudes to eating among twenty- and thirtysomethings have changed a lot over the past 10-15 years, Mike reckons: “Generally, I think people are much more aware. One friend used to eat nothing but stir-fried sausages and supernoodles, and now cooks amazing stuff, three different kinds of naan bread. And another house I lived in, they only ate junk food. They’ve stopped that now; a conscious decision.” Mike, whose dad is “sports mad” and whose mum was a cookery teacher, makes a big effort to eat healthily, although he confesses to being “a bit partial to the naughty stuff. You know, chocolate and all that. And I’m from Birkenhead. So I like my pies and my pasties.” Kieren says they always aim for five-a-day “or more”, and “we’re very good about fruit”. Their favourite dishes? Mike says he’s “big into curries and stews, and stir-fries”. Kieren says he makes a mean chocolate fondant with berry compote. Dinner parties, they modestly agree, can be “quite awesome”. That’s all quite embarrassing, says Mike: “You’d better not say it was me who talked about berry compote.” Food & drink Health & wellbeing Health Family Jon Henley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Munro report to recommend that social workers are given more autonomy to exercise their professional skills and judgment Child protection social workers should be freed up from box-ticking bureaucracy to give them more time to work with families and at-risk youngsters, a government-commissioned report was due to say on Tuesday. The review of safeguarding practice by Professor Eileen Munro will recommend that excessive centrally imposed targets and regulations are ripped up, and practitioners are given more autonomy to exercise their professional skills and judgment. It will also call for the establishment of a chief social worker to speak nationally for the whole of social work, and for child protection social work teams to be allowed to leave the councils and set up in professional practices. Munro was commissioned last year by the education secretary, Michael Gove, to look at a system he said was too bureaucratic, unaccountable and obsessed with procedures and targets. Although the profession is expected to welcome the report, there will be concerns that any improvements in practice that come through the proposed changes will not be enough to offset increasing demands on children’s social work departments at a time when many are facing serious spending cuts and difficulties in recruiting staff. Munro’s insistence on the importance of keeping the director of children’s services role introduced under the last government to oversee child protection locally may also prove problematic. It is estimated that around a fifth of council social work departments in England have started to unpick the reforms introduced seven years ago which vested responsibility for both schools and safeguarding in this post. The review’s final report was expected to say that: • Local authorities should be given greater freedom to develop their own approaches to handling case work, rather than being bound by statutory guidance • Councils should develop ways of keeping experienced senior social workers in front line work so they can better supervise junior practitioners • The excessive burden of inspection on child protection departments should be lifted, and the inspectorate, Ofsted, should not evaluate serious case reviews into child deaths Munro will also recommend that the social work profession be more open and transparent in talking about the pressures and dilemmas faced by safe-guarders, particularly at times of crisis, such as the Baby P case. Child protection Children Social care Baby P Patrick Butler guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Munro report to recommend that social workers are given more autonomy to exercise their professional skills and judgment Child protection social workers should be freed up from box-ticking bureaucracy to give them more time to work with families and at-risk youngsters, a government-commissioned report was due to say on Tuesday. The review of safeguarding practice by Professor Eileen Munro will recommend that excessive centrally imposed targets and regulations are ripped up, and practitioners are given more autonomy to exercise their professional skills and judgment. It will also call for the establishment of a chief social worker to speak nationally for the whole of social work, and for child protection social work teams to be allowed to leave the councils and set up in professional practices. Munro was commissioned last year by the education secretary, Michael Gove, to look at a system he said was too bureaucratic, unaccountable and obsessed with procedures and targets. Although the profession is expected to welcome the report, there will be concerns that any improvements in practice that come through the proposed changes will not be enough to offset increasing demands on children’s social work departments at a time when many are facing serious spending cuts and difficulties in recruiting staff. Munro’s insistence on the importance of keeping the director of children’s services role introduced under the last government to oversee child protection locally may also prove problematic. It is estimated that around a fifth of council social work departments in England have started to unpick the reforms introduced seven years ago which vested responsibility for both schools and safeguarding in this post. The review’s final report was expected to say that: • Local authorities should be given greater freedom to develop their own approaches to handling case work, rather than being bound by statutory guidance • Councils should develop ways of keeping experienced senior social workers in front line work so they can better supervise junior practitioners • The excessive burden of inspection on child protection departments should be lifted, and the inspectorate, Ofsted, should not evaluate serious case reviews into child deaths Munro will also recommend that the social work profession be more open and transparent in talking about the pressures and dilemmas faced by safe-guarders, particularly at times of crisis, such as the Baby P case. Child protection Children Social care Baby P Patrick Butler guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announces separation from wife Maria Shriver Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver are separating “while we work on the future of our relationship”. The announcement on Monday came four months after Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-born bodybuilder turned Hollywood action star, left office in January. “This has been a time of great personal and professional transition for each of us,” Schwarzenegger, 63, and Shriver, 55, said in a statement. “After a great deal of thought, reflection, discussion, and prayer, we came to this decision together.” The couple, who met at a charity tennis tournament in 1977 and married in 1986, did not mention whether they would divorce. “We are continuing to parent our four children together. They are the light and the centre of both of our lives,” the statement said. “We consider this a private matter, and neither we nor any of our friends or family will have further comment.” The couple had maintained their home in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles during Schwarzenegger’s two terms as governor, with him commuting by jet to the state capital in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger said in February he was ready to make movies again and announced recently he was developing a television show and comic book based on his political nickname “The Governator”. An industry source said last month that Schwarzenegger was likely to star in a new “Terminator” movie that would reprise his most famous role as the almost indestructible cyborg from the future. Shriver, an author and former journalist for NBC, is active with a number of volunteer organisations. Her mother was the sister of assassinated US president John F Kennedy and her father, Sargent Shriver, was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1972. Shriver’s father died in January at the age of 95. Although a lifelong Democrat, Shriver campaigned for her Republican husband when he sought to recall and replace then-governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, in 2003. She tried to help Schwarzenegger win re-election in 2006. Arnold Schwarzenegger United States US politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announces separation from wife Maria Shriver Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver are separating “while we work on the future of our relationship”. The announcement on Monday came four months after Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-born bodybuilder turned Hollywood action star, left office in January. “This has been a time of great personal and professional transition for each of us,” Schwarzenegger, 63, and Shriver, 55, said in a statement. “After a great deal of thought, reflection, discussion, and prayer, we came to this decision together.” The couple, who met at a charity tennis tournament in 1977 and married in 1986, did not mention whether they would divorce. “We are continuing to parent our four children together. They are the light and the centre of both of our lives,” the statement said. “We consider this a private matter, and neither we nor any of our friends or family will have further comment.” The couple had maintained their home in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles during Schwarzenegger’s two terms as governor, with him commuting by jet to the state capital in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger said in February he was ready to make movies again and announced recently he was developing a television show and comic book based on his political nickname “The Governator”. An industry source said last month that Schwarzenegger was likely to star in a new “Terminator” movie that would reprise his most famous role as the almost indestructible cyborg from the future. Shriver, an author and former journalist for NBC, is active with a number of volunteer organisations. Her mother was the sister of assassinated US president John F Kennedy and her father, Sargent Shriver, was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1972. Shriver’s father died in January at the age of 95. Although a lifelong Democrat, Shriver campaigned for her Republican husband when he sought to recall and replace then-governor Gray Davis, a Democrat, in 2003. She tried to help Schwarzenegger win re-election in 2006. Arnold Schwarzenegger United States US politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Republicans in state senate pass ‘self-defence’ measure despite resistance from higher education officials The holders of concealed handgun licences are set to be allowed to carry weapons into public college buildings and classrooms in Texas, after Republicans in the state senate approved the measure as part of a universities spending bill. Republican senator Jeff Wentworth had been unable to gain the votes he needed to pass the issue as its own bill after it met stiff resistance from higher education officials, particularly from within the University of Texas UT-System. The senate’s 12 Democrats had mostly worked together to block the measure but were powerless to stop it on Monday when a majority in the 31-member chamber got it added to the spending bill as an amendment. Supporters hope the vote will help push the measure past a roadblock in the house, where a similar bill has been stuck without a vote in that chamber with just a few weeks left in the legislative term. “Campus carry has more momentum than a runaway freight train,” said Scott Lewis of Students for Concealed Carry, a nationwide group backing the measure. Supporters call it a self-defence and guns rights issue. UT-System chancellor, Francisco Cigarroa, wrote to politicians and Governor Rick Perry outlining concerns that the measure will lead to more campus crime and suicides. Hearings were dominated by testimony from supporters who had been raped or assaulted on college campuses, and several people who had survived the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech University when a gunman killed 32 people. Democratic senator Judith Zaffirini, who was a student at the University of Texas in 1966 when sniper Charles Whitman killed 12 people and wounded dozens of others, argued against the bill. She predicted mass chaos if police responded to a call and found several people with guns drawn. “I can’t imagine the horrors if this passes,” Zaffirini said. Wentworth, recalling the shooting at Virginia Tech, said he wanted to give students a chance to defend themselves. “There was no one there to defend themselves in a gun-free zone that was a victim-rich zone,” he said. “I’m trying to avoid that type of situation.” Texas passed its concealed handgun licence law in 1995. Licence holders must be at least 21 and pass a training course. Guns on campus bills have been rejected in at least 23 states since 2007. The bill originally covered private universities, but was changed to cover only public institutions of higher education. The senate rejected attempts to allow university boards of regents to decide gun policy on their campuses. Concealed handgun licence holders in Texas are allowed to skip metal detectors in the state capitol,. Perry made headlines for shooting a coyote on a morning jog last year. Earlier on Monday, senators voted to allow themselves to carry concealed handguns into places the rest of the public cannot, such as churches, restaurants and sporting events. Perry has said he supports the campus guns measure and is expected to sign it into law if it reaches his desk. US gun control United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Republicans in state senate pass ‘self-defence’ measure despite resistance from higher education officials The holders of concealed handgun licences are set to be allowed to carry weapons into public college buildings and classrooms in Texas, after Republicans in the state senate approved the measure as part of a universities spending bill. Republican senator Jeff Wentworth had been unable to gain the votes he needed to pass the issue as its own bill after it met stiff resistance from higher education officials, particularly from within the University of Texas UT-System. The senate’s 12 Democrats had mostly worked together to block the measure but were powerless to stop it on Monday when a majority in the 31-member chamber got it added to the spending bill as an amendment. Supporters hope the vote will help push the measure past a roadblock in the house, where a similar bill has been stuck without a vote in that chamber with just a few weeks left in the legislative term. “Campus carry has more momentum than a runaway freight train,” said Scott Lewis of Students for Concealed Carry, a nationwide group backing the measure. Supporters call it a self-defence and guns rights issue. UT-System chancellor, Francisco Cigarroa, wrote to politicians and Governor Rick Perry outlining concerns that the measure will lead to more campus crime and suicides. Hearings were dominated by testimony from supporters who had been raped or assaulted on college campuses, and several people who had survived the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech University when a gunman killed 32 people. Democratic senator Judith Zaffirini, who was a student at the University of Texas in 1966 when sniper Charles Whitman killed 12 people and wounded dozens of others, argued against the bill. She predicted mass chaos if police responded to a call and found several people with guns drawn. “I can’t imagine the horrors if this passes,” Zaffirini said. Wentworth, recalling the shooting at Virginia Tech, said he wanted to give students a chance to defend themselves. “There was no one there to defend themselves in a gun-free zone that was a victim-rich zone,” he said. “I’m trying to avoid that type of situation.” Texas passed its concealed handgun licence law in 1995. Licence holders must be at least 21 and pass a training course. Guns on campus bills have been rejected in at least 23 states since 2007. The bill originally covered private universities, but was changed to cover only public institutions of higher education. The senate rejected attempts to allow university boards of regents to decide gun policy on their campuses. Concealed handgun licence holders in Texas are allowed to skip metal detectors in the state capitol,. Perry made headlines for shooting a coyote on a morning jog last year. Earlier on Monday, senators voted to allow themselves to carry concealed handguns into places the rest of the public cannot, such as churches, restaurants and sporting events. Perry has said he supports the campus guns measure and is expected to sign it into law if it reaches his desk. US gun control United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …