Jim Reeves,

People are not morons if they eat or drink too much, or smoke or take drugs for that matter, they/we have merely decided that the immediate pleasure of these vice are more important than the consequences such as obesity and poorer health.

Nannying is always a one sided arguement, but humans ultimately make choices that give them the most pleasure, immediate or otherwise.

A parent takes decision for a child until they can make their own choices, the state takes decisions because they beleive we are all children who will never grow up

Matt, Cardiffq,

Well said.

I am sick of sanctimonious know-alls like Gilmore seeking to compel me to do what they want me to do, because they cannot persuade me to do so of my own volition.

As in so many other cases, much of what is said about alcohol is mere scaremongering.

A few people are at serious risk of illness or even death from very small quantities of alcohol, while others can consume far greater amounts without any harm at all.
Your susceptibility depends on your genes, gender, body mass, age, racial background and a whole manner of other factors, which makes the 'one-size fits all' recommendation scientific nonsense.

The direct and indirect dangers of alcohol are real and need to be addressed, but pontification from the likes of Gilmour makes many people just close their minds to the issue completely and reach for another drink.

Cheers!

Bill Rispin, Hull,

Stephen Pollard may well feel patronised by health professionals or the government telling him what he should or should not eat, but then he is a columnist for The Times, in the top 10% (or even 5%) of the population in terms of intelligence. It stands to reason that, if you are in the top few percentiles for intelligence, most public information will seem patronising, but then it is not aimed at you - it is aimed at the bottom 50%of the population in terms of intelligence, who do not write for The Times. It is the course of the intelligent to find an awful lot of public discourse pitched at a level which is too low for them, but, obviously, government and the health service are going to target their messages at the less intelligent half of the population rather than the more intelligent half. Much of the complaining in the media about the "nanny culture" overlooks this.

Neil, Luxembourg,

How's that song go?
"It's my life"

This meddlesome busy-bodying methodology is endemic in our culture now, a huge industry indeed. Sells books, DVD's, magazines and makes these Fascist types ever more wealthy by working as officials for the office of the blindingly obvious. Pernicious, undermining and destabilising of the individual.
I use the word fascist as it closely resembles the activities of those governments of several decades ago.
Scary for in reality, this is no laughing matter, control by fear and oppression never is.

Tom Taylor-Duxbury, Ludlow, UK

Unfortunately, if the consequences of this article are true, and the Editor is saying that we are all fully aware of what we're choosing to drink and eat, then we actually 'are' a nation of morons, because we are willfully choosing to destroy ourselves through over indulgence.

I'm not sure which is worse, killing yourself because you're too stupid to know any different, or killing yourself because you're too stupid to care.

Compensation/Blame culture points the finger at everyone except ourselves.

If we learned to take responsibility for our actions, then we'd have the potential to do a heck of a lot better for ourselves. (also, see blaming banks for letting people borrow too much cash)

The question is, if we don't take responsibility for our own actions, who will? Perhaps the Nanny state is the only thing that will stop us from killing ourselves through sheer stupidity...

Rob W, North Yorkshire,

Yes how very true although I wish the media would try not to be funny and sarcastic as it is plain foolish and immature.

Clearly people are generally fat and unhealthy if they eat more calories than they use up either through exercise or daily routine.

Not least it also makes sense to eat a daily amount of calories that supports the body functions and regeneration of tissue etc.

In essence - eat a balanced daily diet and don't worry if you sometimes have a 'binge' and try to do some exercise each day. Simple really. Shame that we are all so busy working hard to pay those ever increasing bills to have time to exercise and cook at home!

Jim Reeves, BRISTOL, UK

Mr. Pollard, what you say holds true for a portion of the public: the educated and the self-improving. I am fortunate enough to be both. Although that does not keep me from traveling the same road you have mentioned. I am fully aware and take full responsibility for the effect this has on my heath and my pocketbook.

However, Prof. Gilmore's assertions do ring true with what I have seen among friends / associates of lower economic status. More often than not, I've observed that, when pennies are scarce, commercial trickery has an impact. If asked why, the individual's likely response is something like, 'I have to make the most of what I have.'

I don't agree with Prof. Gilmore that a crackdown on commercial practices may be in order. I would suggest that our legislators spend their time less in social-reengineering and more to finding ways to provide better economic security, on both sides of the pond. It's been done in the past and I'm sure we can find a way in our time.

Doug Hockenberry, Meadville, PA, USA

He's probably laughing at you right by writing this article. You've just proved his point.

Steve, London,

I think it's possible that what Professor Gilmore is most concerned about is that when you ask for 'a glass of wine' in a pub these days, you are more likely to get a large glass as standard. The problem is compounded when someone else is buying your drink and you don't see it before it has been paid for. Once you've been bought it, then it would be a waste of money not to finish it (and an insult to whoever bought it for you).

Also, it doesn't seem too far fetched that people might mistake a 175ml glass for a 150ml glass (one of the new measures and the old measure, respectively). Even assuming we are not completely stupid, is it so unlikely that we don't really know how much we normally drink in a glass and so find it easiest to measure our intake by the number of glasses?

I agree that it should be our choice, not the government's, but Professor Gilmore is talking sense.

George, Oxford,