Every second of the day millions of people around the world are preparing and cooking food. It is an activity that has been going on since the beginning of time. But if we are going to win the battle against climate change then what we eat and how we prepare it will have to change. Could a book about cooking ignite that change?

Over the years have I gathered a couple of shelves of cookery books. In amongst the collection are the ‘go to books’ from Delia Smith, Marry Berry and Jamie Oliver which I head for when struggling to prepare an interesting meal. But these books reinforce our existing lifestyle with enticing pictures of food and text that reflect either how we live or how we would like to live. All of these books fail to make any comment about the environmental impact of the food that that is being prepared. There are a few cooking books available that claim environmental credentials with titles such as: Seaweed and Eat It: A Family Foraging and Cooking Adventure, The Acorn House Cookbook: Good Food from Field to Fork and some by celebrities such as Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall’s River Cottage Everday but it is not clear whether they are selling a utopian life rather than changing what we grow and eat.

Cooking books are a major part of the book selling industry. A best seller can achieve around one million copies and therefore it is a good medium to create a change in what we eat. So this is my idea. It would have more impact if a cookery book could be compiled from leading people who are proactive in reducing our impact on the environment. It would be a recipe book with a difference. Each contributor would write about the importance of their favourite meal and how from their perspective it has helped them in the fight against climate change. To select the contributors a few criteria would be required. First they must be able to make the meal themselves. They must understand how the ingredients that they are using has impacted on the environment. Their reflections about their meal could include when they first had the meal, or how it kick started their desire to fight for the planet, or was it a meal that changed another person into a campaigner for a better world? The recipes could range from ‘something’ on toast to a meal made from ingredients that would normally be thrown out. They would be encouraged to write about their own personal dilemmas for example I enjoy milk products but with the need to reduce our reliance on cows what could they write to persuade me to give up on cheese and milk?

There are a number of names that come to mind as contributors such as Sir David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg or Chris Packham. But there are many more people around the world who are making a contribution in the fight against global warming. For example Miao Wang is working with divers to spread awareness about the perils of plastic pollution. What comforting meal would she make after a long day of diving and how does it avoid the use of plastic containers? Another contributor could be Angela Merkel who is the only major politician left who helped develop the original global warming agreement at Kyoto in 1997. But actions speak louder than words and she is leading Germany to turn away from coal and oil, and setting the highest targets for renewables and emission cuts. After a long day of politicking does the Chancellor of Germany sit down for a favourite national meal of rice pudding? It is important to include those who need a voice on the world stage and one possible could be Henry Saragih who is a small farmer who is taking on the Indonesian government and the palm oil barons of Sumatra and Kalimantan. Companies with links to government are devastating vast areas of Indonesia and southeast Asia to grow palm oil to supply Europe’s cars and kitchens with biofuel and cooking oils, and Saragih is one of the few people standing in their path. What does he cook for himself after a hard day of campaigning?

The cookery book proposed would be a sort of manifesto for what and how we should eat to reduce our impact on the environment. And when the many millions of people sit down to plan their next meal then let us hope that they will be reminded by such a book of how much they can play in beating climate change.

During lockdown our kitchen was at full steam, flour availability permitting, producing cakes, chocolate biscuits and bread. But we ran into a problem. A cupboard door wouldn’t close properly because a spring had broken. The search to find a replacement part discovered weaknesses in UK manufacturing but also created thoughts about its future after the Great Pause.

With some instructions off the web and pressing a few clips I took the broken part out of the cupboard. It was a spring made in Germany. After deciphering a few symbols I headed back onto the web and found a few stockists in the UK. But when I approached them I received the standard get out reply of “we no longer have these in stock.” I eventually contacted the original manufacturer in Germany and ordered a new part that would take four to six weeks to arrive because it had to be made to order. Curiosity took over and I wanted to find out of if there were any UK manufacturers of equivalent springs. I found a few companies that supplied them to the motor and aviation industry but they didn’t appear to have any for a kitchen cupboard. What has happened to the manufacturing capability in the UK?

Manufacturing was once the bedrock of economic activity in the UK but has slowly declined over tens of years. In 1952, it produced a third of the national output, employed 40 per cent of the workforce and made up a quarter of world manufacturing exports. Today, manufacturing in the UK accounts for just 11 per cent of GDP, employs only 8 per cent of the workforce and sells 2 per cent of the world’s manufacturing exports.

The current Covid-19 pandemic has emphasised the weakness in UK manufacturing with our inability to produce medical equipment for frontline workers. However, there are signs of hope as it quickly responded to the pandemic with many companies, large and small, coming together to manufacture ventilators, PPE and hand sanitisers. This flexibility has shown that there is still some life in UK manufacturing and is the basis for building itself a stronger future.

When lockdown starts to ease there is another greater challenge facing us. Climate change, like Covid-19, will affect us all. Lockdown has given an insight into what a green future would look like with reductions in carbon emissions and reduced carbon miles. But for many industries once the pandemic is under control it will not be back to ‘business as usual’ because they will have to rebuild against a background of new demands. Now is the time for UK manufacturing to turn green and rebuild itself to lead the way in combating climate change.

There are many new areas that manufacturing could exploit so that it can rebuild itself. One area that has been highlighted during the pandemic is medical equipment. The UK imports around 40% of its medical equipment and given its strategic importance for future pandemics then there is an opportunity for manufacturers to increase its production in this area. Another area is the development of new medical equipment ranging from robotic surgeons to quick home tests for diseases. Transportation will require a massive switch to electric powered vehicles in all their shapes and sizes. There may be opportunities for new types of vehicles such as unmanned small vans that can deliver goods from local suppliers to doorsteps which would reduce carbon miles down. The UK produces about 60% of its own food. Manufacturing could develop new equipment to plant and harvest vegetables which will be in greater demand as consumption moves away from animals. New technology could be integrated into manufacturing processes to make them more adaptable for changes in demand for example 3D Printing ¹. Another example is the future design of equipment could include re-cycling so that old parts are returned to the manufacturer to be used in new equipment.

However, the changes required to rebuild manufacturing will take some time and therefore can not be left to market forces because they are too short-term. Government intervention is required to provide a framework for the regeneration of manufacturing. There are many forms that its policies needs to take. First government policy must have a stronger green element to drive manufacturing towards a green economy. Policies need to reduce cheap imports which ultimately export jobs which has undermined UK manufacturing for many years. If ‘cheap’ goods are demanded then government policy should encourage the development of skills in automation and robot systems to systems that will reduce the production of the goods.

Another change in government policy is education. It needs to be radically overhauled with a stronger emphasis on STEM, biology and the environment. The education system should integrate the arts into the design so that whatever is produced enhances the environment that we live in both physically and emotionally. Their policy must include re-training for people at every stage of their lives so that for those who are interested can stay up to date with the latest manufacturing technology.

Although the manufacturing industry accounts for the majority of R&D expenditure in the UK (65% in 2018), this is down from 84% in 1985. Universities should concentrate on teaching and research and not include spin-offs for new technology which has only been partially successful. If the research shows any promise for new technologies then it can be transferred to something like the government’s Catapult Network where business could get free access to the technology if they meet certain criteria. For example, the business should demonstrate that it is strong enough to sustain a shock in its earnings, as is happening during the Covid-19 pandemic, before they get access to the new technology.

UK manufacturing response to the pandemic has shown that there are signs that when the Great Pause is over it can have a stronger future in building the green economy. And next time I have a breakdown in our kitchen I can return the part to a UK manufacturer for repair!

^{1. For an in-depth guide about 3D Printing then see: 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing Using Polymers - Complete Guide ↩}

A simple equation has changed the way that we live. It is having a greater impact than any of the ground breaking theories from science. The reproduction number \(R\) is being used to change our behaviours to reduce the spread of the Covid-19 virus and will leave its mark on us well into the future.

Governments around the world are using \(R\) to guide their actions in controlling the spread of the Covid-19 virus. The version of \(R\) that they are using is the “basic” reproduction number, \(R_0\) ( or \(R\) nought) and it is the situation when when no one has been vaccinated, no one has had the disease before and there is no way to control the disease. Calculating \(R\) is a complicated process but comes down to three components: how long a person is infected, how often they come in contact with others and how the disease is spread. A long period of infection will increase the value of \(R\). If a person comes in contact with lots of people then they increase the value of \(R\) as well as how it is transmitted for example airborne diseases will give a higher value.

The value of \(R\) is used to assess the contagiousness of a disease. For example if \(R\) has a value of 2 then one infected person will pass the virus onto another two other people who in turn will each pass it onto another two and so on. If \(R\) is less than 1 then the spread of the virus will decline. Calculating $R$ requires complex mathematical modelling, lots of data and powerful computers which results, at best, in an average for its value. For example $R$ has a value of between 1 - 2 for the common cold, SARS is 2 - 5, and at the early stages of Covid-19 it varied between 1.4 - 5.7. The UK Government’s action plan is aimed at reducing \(R\) by breaking the transmission of the virus with regular messages by washing hands, enforcing social distancing and a lockdown for non-essential workers. Early signs, but unconfirmed, is that \(R\) could be between 1 and 0.5

But it is the impact of reducing \(R\) which is having a dramatic impact on our lives. Health and Social Care systems are having to respond to the virus in ways that were never expected as they fight to save as many lives as possible. Non-essential parts of the UK economy have hit a brick wall while other sectors plummeted to their lowest levels of activity since records began. There is a similar picture around the world which is slowing global trade and will ultimately reduce economic activity in national economies. The response of governments to the pandemic is starting to raise fundamental questions about how we live and work. How will those people who are identified as key workers be valued in the future by society? Will government intervention in the economy during the crisis remain for many years ahead? Is their proposed tracking and tracing app a step too far in monitoring society? How much do we really know about the human body and how it works and how its it translated into medicine Will the growth of the digital economy accelerate through on-line entertainment and delivering more goods to our doorsteps but will it go on to change the type of work? Are the days of commuting over? Will on-line learning become an integral part of education? Will the remote monitoring and support of patients be a few clicks from a doctors desk? Should the length of supply chains be reduced to within our shores and we make more of our own products so that we can respond quickly to future crisis?

If \(R\) had stayed buried in technical papers and and discussed in specialist conferences with the occasional discussion at a government strategic committee then we would never of heard of it. But now it has made its way into everyones lives, through the actions of governments, then lots of questions are bubbling to the surface. The longer that the fight against Covid-19 goes on then the greater the public will require action in answering these questions.

Over a century ago Einstein’s equation \(E=mc^2\) was brought to the publics attention which heralded the start of a revolution in our understanding of how the universe works, from planets down to the quantum level, which created the technology that has shaped our lives. \(R\) has signalled the start of another science revolution but this time it will be in our understanding of how we live together and down to the level cell activity s which will change our future.

At a recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, HRH Prince of Wales delivered a keynote speech about combating climate change. In the speech one statistic caught my attention: “With consumers controlling an estimated 60% of global G.D.P., people around the world have the power to drive the transformation to sustainable markets.” As a consumer do I really have the power to change the world for the better?

The speech was aimed at governments, businesses and other organisations and was strategic in nature but what is needed is a translation from the high level ideas into to what it means for how we spend our money. The first question that I asked was do I really control 60% of my income? A quick back-of-the-envelop calculation using some average numbers: the UK’s Gross Domestic Product for 2019 was £2.21 trillion pounds and the total tax receipts including VAT was £821 billion pounds which gives around 63% which was left for us to spend as I wish. However, there are certain things that we have to purchase by law for example car insurance and TV licence, and other requirements e.g. house insurance, therefore very roughly it is correct that we control how we spend 60% of our income.

The next question is what exactly is a sustainable market? After all isn’t growing food not sustainable? The farmer grows a crop and holds back some seed to grow the crop the following year. Is that not a form of sustainability? However, with increasing mechanisation and automation in agriculture, with its subsequent increase in the Carbon footprint along with overworking of the soil ( which the experts claim that we only have around 60 years of harvesting left ) it is not as sustainable as I thought. A quick web search produced the following description for sustainable markets: “can be loosely defined as those that contribute to stronger livelihoods and more sustainable environments. In linking with the pursuit of ‘sustainable development’, such markets have a multiple focus on social, environmental and economic outcomes. Sustainable markets aim to reflect the true costs (or externalities) of natural resource degradation, environmental pollution, and promote just and safe labour practices.”

But how do I know that the goods and services that I purchase are sustainable? There are two aspects for any goods or services: how the item is produced and how we consume it. For example buying a DVD: how sustainable is the method of manufacturing, sales, playing it and its final disposal? The same question can be asked about each item that we purchase which can cover hundreds of products and services) ranging from a cup of coffee to holidays. The operation of national and local governments and organisations such as charities can fall under this question. The Prince of Wales emphasis this point in his speech “ … we cannot expect consumers to make sustainable choices if these choices are not clearly laid before them. As consumers increasingly demand sustainable products, they deserve to be told more about product lifecycles, supply chains and production methods. For a transition to take place, being socially and environmentally conscious cannot only be for those who can afford it. If all the true costs are taken into account, being socially and environmentally responsible should be the least expensive option because it leaves the smallest footprint behind. We must communicate better with consumers about the sustainability of the goods, services and investments we offer.”

The Prince of Wales’ keynote speech outlines a ten point plan to achieve sustainable markets which I believe will be a start to combatting climate change and I hope that governments, business and other organisations start to implement ASAP. In the meantime I shall be taking my spending power and asking questions about the sustainability of the products and services that I buy - I will keep you up to date with what I find.

A TV fishing series has opened up a conversation about men’s health. But is it all talk?

The TV series Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing shows the comedians Bob Mortimer and Paul Whitehouse try, with mixed success, to catch a particular species of fish for example the beautiful coloured brown trout or the mighty carp. Each episode takes them to a scenic river or lake in the UK where they spend most of the day fishing. During the long periods of sitting waiting for a fish to bite they crack jokes, mess about and discuss life’s great problems. The TV series has had an impact on men. I have lost count of the times when I mention that I am an angler there is a reply: “have you seen Gone Fishing?” which is an opener for a discussion about fishing and men’s health. But is there any science to back up the claim that fishing can improve men’s health?

The statistics for men’s health in the UK makes grim reading: 68% of men are overweight and 14% of men have untreated high blood pressure. The statistics for men’s mental health has worsened with 37% admitting to regularly feeling worried or low in 2009 to 43% today.

Although on the surface, fishing doesn’t seem to be as active as cycling, swimming or football, there is more going on than meets the eye. Studies have shown that there are many benefits from standing in the fresh air: boosting the immune system and increasing levels of energy. Fishing also includes the challenges of how to reach the river bank with rods, nets, bait etc. and trying not to fall in! Carrying equipment strengthens muscles and improves heart health. Walking over the rough surfaces of a river bank or around a lake has been shown to improve balance and coordination.

Apart from the physical benefits there are mental health benefits to be gained from fishing. Scientific reports have shown that fishing provides a perfect stopgap measure for dealing with short-term stress. Also, in a recent study, a team of researchers found that combat veterans had significant reductions in stress and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms along with improvements in sleep quality after participating in fly fishing. Also, studies have shown that connecting with fellow fishers and belonging to a club, and [learning new skills]((https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/learn-for-mental-wellbeing/) can boost self confidence and improve mental health.

In summary there are lots of scientific support for the physical and mental health benefits from fishing for men. Therefore my call to the medical professionals dealing with men’s health is that instead of reaching for a programme of drugs, or activities with strange sounding names, why not prescribe some fishing?

Bob and Paul may not catch many fish during their TV series but they have caught the attention of the wider public and men in particular. Let’s hope that the discussion continues and develops into concrete action to improve men’s health.