Connect with us


England tops solid association table in general store sold sustenance, Oxford University study finds



England isn’t on a shoddy nourishment diet – the sustenance sold in its general stores tops wellbeing group tables, an investigation by Oxford University proposes.

The investigation of in excess of 400,000 nourishment and drink items from 12 nations positioned Britain best for the degrees of sugar, fat, salt and calories in like manner sustenances.

The positioning came notwithstanding the reality the UK has the most astounding stoutness levels in western Europe.

What’s more, the US – which has the most astounding heftiness levels on the planet – was found to have the second most beneficial contributions marked down, trailed by Australia.

The George Institute for Global Health at the University of Oxford broke down surveyed nations utilizing Australia’s Health Star Rating framework – which estimates the degrees of the supplements, for example, vitality, salt, sugar, immersed fat just as protein, calcium and fiber.

Image result for the food sold in its supermarkets tops health

It found that the UK had the highest average Health Star Rating of 2.83, followed by the US at 2.82 and Australia at 2.81. India got the lowest rating of just 2.27 followed by China at 2.43 with Chile coming third from bottom at 2.44.

The results were published in Obesity Reviews.

Lead author Dr Elizabeth Dunford said: “Globally we’re all eating more and more processed foods and that’s a concern because our supermarkets’ shelves are full of products that are high in bad fats, sugar and salt and are potentially making us sick. Our results show that some countries are doing a much better job than others.”

Later this year, Public Health England is due to issue new calorie guidelines setting out stringent calorie limits on hundreds of foods, such as sandwiches and ready meals.

The body has already set targets for sugar content of common foods, which critics say would result in the elimination of traditional sweets, such as Sherbet Lemons and Parma Violets.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Helen Mirren And Vanessa Kirby Share Stories Of The Last Fight They Had | Extra Butter



mirren helen

Quick and Furious Presents Hobb and Shaw are scheduled to hit theaters this end of the week and the ladies of the film need you to realize they aren’t a sucker. I plunked down with Helen Mirren who opened up to Xilla Valentine that despite the fact that she doesn’t battle, somebody stole her handbag once and she followed him down and took it once more from him while giving him an ear brimming with swear words. Helen plays Queenie, the mother of Deckard Shaw and Hattie Shaw played by Vanessa Kirby who I got that opportunity to plunk down with also.

Image result for Helen Mirren And Vanessa Kirby Share Stories

During our visit, Vanessa educated us that the last time she was in a battle she got kicked out of a club. She thought a youngster was an old companion of hers, however, that welcome transformed into a battle between their then beaus and Vanessa and friends got expelled from the scene. She goes proceed to concede that it was her deficiency.

Quick And Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw pursue lawman Luke Hobbs and pariah Deckard Shaw on interest to discover a stolen infection they keep running into a digital hereditarily upgraded reprobate who compromises the eventual fate of humankind so the FRIENEMIES unite to spare the world. That prompts a ton of giggling and extraordinary activity scenes.

On this scene of Hobbs and Shaw, you will likewise get the chance to see a scene of Vanessa Kirby in Hobbs and Shaw making part in some vehicular move that the establishment is known for. Quick And Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw is in theaters wherever on August second, 2019

Continue Reading


devouring Madonna and Elizabeth Taylor’s



Actually, this is about as wide of the mark as you can get. The whole point about celebrities is that there can never be too much information. There might not have been too much interest in Elizabeth Taylor’s underwear, or, if there was, it would in the 1960s have been regarded as prurient. But there was certainly major interest in her love affairs, especially the association with Burton. Today, no detail of a celebrity’s private life is privileged: to be a celebrity means to be willing to go public with the minutiae of what might, at another time in history, be known as a private life. No one recognized this as clearly as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone.

Around the time of the release of her album Like a Prayer in 1989 Madonna seems to have had one of those “Eureka!” moments. Or maybe it was more like a peek at a crystal ball (Baccarat crystal, of course). She seems to have arrived at the conclusion that a new age was upon us, one in which celebrities would rule the earth. “I have seen the future,” she might have declared, “and it is one in which the fans will demand more and receive more; and those who are prepared to give them what they want – or even more – will prevail.” Over the next five years, she did precisely this. “Madonna would later comment that this entire period of her life was designed to give the world every single morsel of what they [sic] seemed to be demanding in their invasion of her private life” ( Madonna).

The world didn’t so much “demand” details of or “invade” her private life: they were inescapably, unavoidably, obligatorily surrounded by a life which might have been “private” in one sense, but was opened up for full public inspection. Before her, stars had tried to section off parts of their lives. After, they either gave up trying, or gave up trying to be a star.

The organizing themes of Madonna’s career, 1989–94, were classic celebrity: finely judged scandal, continuous media exposure, a cycle of dramatic makeovers, and sex. Its momentum was such that it carried her through over two decades as a leading

showbusiness performer. She sold more records than any other female in history (250 million and counting) and amassed personal wealth of over $600 million. She earned paeans, prizes, and plaudits and drew censure, condemnation, and jeers.

Her first album Madonna was released in 1983 and sprung three successful singles, all of them heavily featured on MTV, then in its ascendancy. The music channel could legitimately be credited with making many artists – Duran Duran included – and stymieing the progress of others – numerous African American artists had their videos turned down by MTV and it took pressure from CBS to ensure a place for Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” on the playlist in 1983. Madonna, however, was perfectly congruent with MTV’s preferred profile: white, twentysomething, tons of junk jewelry, and a wardrobe that might have been put together from a flea market. Anyone could look like Madonna; millions actually did.

Then she assumed a new image: a bottle-blonde Marilyn Monroe manqué dripping with Harry Winston diamonds for her “Like a virgin” video, Madonna kept changing, keeping her fans guessing as to what she looked like. Two movies, an appearance in a Broadway play, a tempestuous marriage, the publication of nude photospreads (against her wishes: the shots were taken in the early 1980s), and multi-million record sales had turned Madonna into a major performer. She could have opted to stick with the formula: more albums, more chameleon-like changes of image, and occasional ventures into drama; in which case, she would have been remembered in the same way as her contemporaries, like Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey.

In the golden age of Hollywood, adultery, under-age sex, abortion, alcoholism, venereal disease, and suicide were rife. But journalists in the main refrained from gossiping about the hedonistic excesses of the stars. Controversy and scandal were unwelcome detours on the professional highway for movie and music stars. Often they were roads to oblivion. The media respected this and limited their criticisms to on-screen performances. In 1989, Madonna deviated with what might have been suicidal recklessness. For five years, she all but dared the media not to get involved.

1989. In the video for the title track of the Like a Prayer album, Madonna appeared with long raven hair, portraying a prostitute who witnesses a rape and murder. After a black man is falsely accused and jailed, Madonna goes to church, where a status of St Martin de Porres resembling the accused comes to life and kisses her passionately. The video which also featured burning crosses, was denounced by the Vatican (echoes of Taylor) for its “blasphemous” eroticism and misuse of Catholic symbolism. Pepsi-Cola pulled out of a $5 million endorsement deal with Madonna. The furor placed Madonna at the center of an international news story and helped turn the album into a global success: three more hit singles were taken from the album. (Pepsi was also embarrassed by endorsers Michael Jackson and Britney Spears, the latter photographed while drinking Coca-Cola.)

1990. MTV banned “Justify my love,” a single with sexually explicitly lyrics (“You put this in me . . .”) and an erotic video with gay and lesbian scenes to match. Being banned by the very medium that had been key to her initial success was a delicious paradox and the media devoured it. Over a million copies of the cd were moved. The visual style of the “Vogue” video bore gay influences.

Continue Reading





voyeurs and players :

“My drug hell”-type headlines are now commonplace in the tabloids. You’d be forgiven for assuming we’ve always had a ghoulish fascination with the lives of other people, especially the parts of their lives we: (a) are thankful we never have to experience; or (b) would love to be part of. But we’ve been incited. In the 1960s, we wouldn’t instantly and greedily gobble up stories about the so-called private lives of the rich and famous. Now many of us probably spend more time following the lives of celebrities than we do familiarizing ourselves with “legitimate” news. It may be harmless, but surely it wasn’t spontaneous. We didn’t suddenly become ravenous for insider information on celebrities’ sex lives, or label-by-label breakdowns of what clothes they wear, or what bar they were drinking at last night. Our appetites have been whetted, our tastes cultivated. How, when, why, by whom, and with what consequences?

You could argue that most interesting things about celebrity culture are the least important – the celebrities. Less interesting but much more important is our preoccupation with famous persons whose lives never intersect with our own and whose fortunes make no material difference to us. Also interesting is the

apparatus geared to producing talent-free entertainers, or even “ordinary people” who crave fleeting renown. Or, consumer society and the relentless drive to convert everything and everyone into commodities that can be sold like items on a supermarket shelf. These all seem worthy of our attention.

You can’t understand anything without context: the circumstances surrounding something, the conditions under which it comes into being and the situations that precede and follow it. Celebrity culture is no exception. It didn’t pop out of a vacuum: there were conditions, triggering episodes and deep causes. The conditions include the proliferation of media in the 1980s and the loss in confidence in established forms of leadership and authority that happened around the same time. I’ll deal with these in chapters to come. By triggers, I mean specific events and the people involved in them: like the scandalous picture of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the emergence and death of Diana and, most importantly, Madonna. Again, all these will be covered. The cause of celebrity culture insinuates us in a larger story, that of consumer society and, in a sense, this story runs throughout the book, though I’ll expand a little before we go on. (I also lay these and other key features out in a timeline toward the end of the book, pages 270–9.)

The cast of characters that make up today’s generation of celebrities couldn’t be more saleable if they had barcodes. You don’t need to be a cynic to realize that the instant someone scales the heights of public visibility and makes it into the headlines or onto television, they start selling. If they’re not directly selling dvds, movies, cds, concert tours or books, they’re indirectly selling cosmetics, cars, household appliances and every other imaginable piece of merchandise.

Some might argue: that’s what they’re for – to sell. A straight- forwardly one-dimensional assessment, perhaps, but one with some merit. After all, entertainers and sports stars have, for years, sold tickets to cinemas or sports events on their name value. They’ve also operated sidelines in endorsements, allowing their

names and images to be linked with products they might never have used in exchange for hard cash. Contemporary celebrity culture brought with it a significant change.

Other writers whose work I review in later chapters argue that today’s celebrity culture is an extension of a collective preoccupation with the famous. It has long-standing historical antecedents. I think differently: there is something distinct about today’s celebrity culture. Instead of just being devices for marketing films, music or the consumer products they endorse, the celebrities have become products themselves. They are now commodities in the sense that they’ve become articles of trade that can be bought and sold in a marketplace. Obviously, you can’t buy them, but you can buy their representations, their sounds and the products with which they’re associated. Consumers pay for that presence.

You’d have to be a conspiracy theorist to leave it there, though. The image of a cabal of capitalist supremos huddled around a table plotting the next phase of consumer society and contriving the idea of changing famous people from moving advertisements to actual commodities is a delectable one. But it doesn’t really play. We need a more detailed investigation into the changes that led us – the consumers, the fans, the audience – to embrace the celebs and, significantly, spend money in the process.

This is less straightforward, though not a project that will plunge us into hopeless confusion. We just need to backtrack to the days when digital meant fingers and toes, and rap was some- thing you got across the knuckles for misbehaving. Celebrity culture became a feature of social life, especially in the developed world, during the late 1980s/early 1990s, and extended into the twenty-first century, assisted by a global media which promoted, lauded, sometimes abominated, and occasionally annihilated figures, principally from entertainment and sports.

We became progressively preoccupied with famous persons whom we endowed with great meaning though without really reflecting on why. Their public visibility, or profile, seemed to be

more crucial than what they said or did. Only rarely did we ask: “Why do I want to know about this person?” or “Why did this person become famous in the first place?” The phrase “famous for being famous” was once a tautological joke. It eventually became a reasonable explanation of why someone or other was fêted.

By the end of the 1990s, the bar had been lowered: in previous decades famous figures, or “personalities” as they were often called, had to work harder to achieve fame or notoriety. The Rolling Stones had to trash countless hotel rooms and get busted for drugs. The Sex Pistols had to remain determinedly obnoxious even on their days off. Even Elizabeth Taylor, who reigned empress-like in the 1960s, intrigued her global audience with extra-marital improprieties. And they had to produce music and films too. (More on Taylor in the next chapter.)

Now, their essays in sleaze and scandal seem unacceptably devoid of depravity. We demand something different of today’s celebrities. What’s more, we don’t want to wait for it to be discovered: celebs must surrender themselves to life in a kind of virtual Panopticon – the ideal prison where the cells are arranged around a central watchtower in which concealed authority figures can inspect without being inspected. We, the fans, are in the watchtower and the celebs are open to our inspection. The moment they withdraw or become reticent, we lose interest and start peering at others. Just as we vote wannabe celebs out of the Big Brother house, we can send celebs to oblivion. And we know it.

Skilled in the art of celeb-making and celeb-breaking, we consumers have more power collectively than at any time in history. Contrary to how we’re often depicted, we’re not hapless chumps who just luxuriate in whatever is dropped on us. We’re educated in the arts of celeb-production by the very channels that present them. Put another way, we don’t just look at the pictures: we’ve become able readers. In fact, we do most of the work. This is Joshua Gamson’s argument and one I find completely persuasive. His 1994 study Claims to Fame: Celebrity

in contemporary America portrays fans as knowing and savvy participants in the celebrity production process: “The position audiences embrace includes the roles of simultaneous voyeurs of and performers in commercial culture” (1994: 137. Year of publication followed, where appropriate, by page numbers will be given in brackets throughout the text, with a full bibliography at the end of the book).

Continue Reading