Food Standards Agency

There is a rumour published in The Observer today  ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/11/andrew-lansley-jobs-purge-nhs ) that Andrew Lansley, our new Minister for Health, is going to scrap the Food Standards Agency.

I sincerely hope this isn’t true. If it is, I will consider it to be a terrible decision.

The Food Standard Agency was established to keep those responsible for keeping food safety  independent from those trying to promote and protect the food industry as a whole. It was not established for ideological reasons, but because of a long line of disasters in food safety.

And it is independent. All of its recommendations to ministers are published, and are in the public domain. Its has playing a key role in forcing down salt in processed food.

Obesity is an enormous problem in the western world, and is getting worse. At the most callous level, there are billions of pounds a year to be saved in public health if we can improve the nations diet.

The last Conservative government deregulated what agricultural feed manufacturers could feed cattle. In no time at all, we were feeding cows, (who are natural herbivores, lest we forget) the brains of other cows. Which resulted in Mad Cow Disease. Bad for public health, obviously, but also a disaster for the food industry.

The government will claim this is all about cutting back on quangos and saving money. I wonder. If the Food Standards Agency is abolished, I wonder how long it will be before Genetically Modified crops are in our fields.

Heir to Spike

When I was about 9, my favourite book in the world was Milliganimals by Spike Milligan. It was full of silly poems about animals (many of which I can still recite from memory), silly drawings of animals, and, best of all, the silliest story ever written, called Bald Twit Lion. It starts like this:

“Once, twice and thrice upon a time there lived a Jungle. It started at the bottom and went upwards till it reached the monkeys, who had been waiting years for the trees to reach them, and as soon as they did the monkeys invented climbing down. Most trees were made of wood, and so were the rest. Trees never spoke, not even to each other, so they never said much (actually one tree did once say “much” but nobody believed him), they never said “fish” either, not even on Fridays. It was a really good Jungle: great scarlet lilies, yellow irises, thousands of grasses all grew very happily, and this Jungle was always on time. Some people are always late, like the late King George V. But not this Jungle.”

I can remember getting about this far as a child before I started laughing out loud, and before the end of the page I had succumbed to that delicious condition, so rare in adulthood, of being completely unable to breathe from helpless laughter.  I would try to read passages to my parents, only to dissolve into hysteria after a few words. If I remembered a bit in class I would have to bite my lip to stop myself from laughing.

I was reminded of this recently, because I read a bedtime book to my son which provoked very much the same reaction in him. And I felt the writer might have had some familiarity with the Bald Twin Lion. See what you think.

The book, You’re a Bad Man, Mr. Gum by Andy Stanton, starts like this:

“This is the story of the Battle of Lamonic Bibber, or as it became known, the Dinnertime Wars or, as it didn’t become known. Ghostbusters III. And know this, my friends – it was a terrible conflict indeed. Like all wars it was full of madness and anger. Like all wars there were courageous heroes and dastardly villains. Like practically all wars there was a dirty little monkey called Philip the Horror.

But I know what you’re wondering. You’re wondering how the Dinnertime Wars got started in the first place, aren’t you?

‘How did it all start?’ you say.

‘Where did it begin? you ask.

‘What do you mean, a monkey?’ you enquire.

‘Shut up,’ I reply. ‘Stop bothering me with all these questions, and I will tell you.”

You get the idea. The Mr. Gum books are lovely to read out loud: they are very funny, and get a belly laugh from any child – or adult – who happens to be listening. Bald Twit Lion and Mr Gum are little Silly Symphonies of nonsense, in which nothing really happens, but I suspect that they are more educational than a sackful of encyclopaedias, because they play games with words, and help to instil a love of language. Or not. Who cares? They make us laugh, which is an end in itself.

Murdoch’s Paywall

I want to quickly put an unpopular opinion on record. I have a strong suspicion that Murdoch’s decision to charge for access to The Times Online will not fail.

Clay Shirky, says the opposite here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/05/clay-shirky-internet-television-newspapers I have read a lot in the last few months which takes it for granted that the paywall experiment will fail. The blogosphere has decreed that Murdoch does not ‘get’ the internet.

I am not so sure. My reasons are as follows:

1. Murdoch is very rich. Clay Shirky is not. Clay Shirky claims to have done the maths, and found that the numbers do not add up. I hope I can be forgiven for trusting the maths of a billionaire, especially when counting money.

2. Murdoch has done this before, with great success. In 1993, Murdoch brought Sky TV to Britain. Satellite television was quickly established as a national joke. The quality was poor, the monthly costs were high, and the papers gleefully reported years of huge losses. Why would people start paying for something – television – they could get (without paying extra) from the BBC, widely considered one of the best broadcasting organisations in the world?

But Murdoch is patient, and has deep pockets.

Now, Sky TV is massively profitable, and, relying less on advertising revenue, has come out of the recession stronger than ever.

Also in Murdoch’s favour is the recent arrival of a very conservative Conservative government, many members of which are openly hostile to the BBC.

I hope I am wrong, and the Mr Shirky is right. But despite what everyone is saying, Murdoch is not stupid.

Doodle God and Strimko

I downloaded an app for my iPhone last night which really confused me. Called Doodle God, it is riding high in the Top Paid Downloads section, is the lowest possible price, and has a nearly perfect rating from users. How could I go wrong in buying it?

I think I made my first mistake expecting it to be a puzzle game. It has many elements of the genre: you have to combine elements to make new elements, and I was looking for some guiding logic that governed why some elements can be combined, and others not. But there is none. You just have to randomly drag elements together until you get a combination. And that is it.

iPhone Screenshot 2

My ideal of puzzle game has the following elements: no luck, no randomness and no need for fast reactions. Word puzzles can be fun, but lack the purity of number puzzles, where no spelling difficulties (or national differences) have any influence. Strimko, pictured below, is ideal, but Sokoban is another example.

It is just you against the puzzle. If you can’t solve it, there is no-one to blame but yourself.

iPhone Screenshot 1

When I realised that Doodle God was not a puzzle game at all (in fairness, it is just listed as a game on the app store) I became overly agitated. It was like someone had violated a sacred principle. But what really amazed me was reading the (almost) uniform praise that the game gets from other people. What are these people thinking? Doodle God has a relationship to a real puzzle game as a toy steering wheel has to driving a car.

Thinking about it, I think the difference goes to the heart of my character. I like to think of the universe as governed by physical laws, with no supernatural influences. I like to think that all the answers to all the questions are just waiting to be discovered, some more obvious than others, but all waiting for the right mind to unlock the secret. All the seeming chaos is governed by science. This is the enlightenment view. If you don’t understand the universe, it is because you have not thought hard enough.

The other way of thinking is that the universe is governed by an unseen intelligence, whose ways are mysterious and inscrutable. This is the medieval view. That you do not expect to understand the universe, that understanding the universe is not possible for humans.

I am not saying that one way is right or wrong: my knowledge of science is limited to popular science paperbacks, and thus constitutes nothing more than a belief system for me. I just reflect that you can tell a lot from someone by which puzzle games they find satisfying to complete.