Sweet charade for subverting Act of Parliament’s purpose
OUR postA and P show debriefing committee meeting started enthusiastically. Not content with the official verdict on our baking challenge entries, we five cooks, plus two nonbakers, who had been bribed with cake and coerced to participate, had assembled over cups of tea to sample all five pumpkin loaves.
I had felt it was not wise to have the cooks — me, my sisters (the Earthquake Baby and Queen of Cookery), plus friends (the Christchurch Cook and the Blenheim Baker) — involved.
I wanted independent blind tasting, but the Earthquake Baby, who had unilaterally taken charge of the sampling process and was therefore wielding a sharp knife, was having none of that. The rest of the committee couldn’t have cared less.
The EB declared a slice would be cut from each loaf and divided into portions for tasting. We could choose a top or bottom portion and take a slug of tea between samples. (I thought that could give an unfair overall impression should the top or bottom be burnt/ uncooked, but as I was sitting next to the knifewielder, saying nothing was safest.)
Someone whined about wanting to slather the portions with butter, but I decreed that would clog up the palate.
The first two samples were found to be quite similar and we could even agree the EB’s one was gingerier.
Then, we sampled the offering from the Christchurch Cook, whose regularshaped and rather dense loaf had secured second prize at the show. She was the only one placed.
All of us, with our unclogged palates, agreed it was salty and noticeably much less sweet than the other two.
Hilarious pandemonium ensued when the CC confessed she may have left out the sugar, something she had wondered about when producing her prizewinner.
In any case, she felt having a less sweet loaf (it still contained golden syrup) was more desirable. (The QC has since pointed out the CC could buy some sugar with her $3 prize money.)
There was, of course, not supposed to be any leeway for improving the recipe as those entering the challenge class are all to use the recipe provided in the show schedule.
When it came to sampling my offering, I admitted that while I had not missed out any ingredients or added extras, I had mixed the baking soda with the wet ingredients contrary to the recipe instructions.
This confession off my chest, I then felt able to accuse the QC (whose name will now be inscribed on the McNees Cup for the most points in the cookery section for the sixth time) of using extra rising agents for her voluminous loaf which we agreed had a sponginess others lacked.
After this nonsense, the only consensus reached was that we all felt nauseous from that sampling and scoffing of other show entry leftovers.
Such procedural slackness made me wonder if we had been channelling the public health advisory committee which existed from 2000 to 2016 and which, by law, was supposed to provide independent advice to the Government on public health.
In his recently published Sir Frank Holmes Memorial Lecture, delivered last November, Prof Sir David Skegg outlined his mission to find out what had happened to this committee.
Ludicrously, the Ministry of Health ‘‘refused to provide even the dates of any meetings between 2008 and 2013 on the grounds that the ‘volume of collation required was such that the ministry’s ability to carry out its daytoday work would be impaired’.’’
It could provide dates of 17 meetings between March 2014 and March 2016 and agenda papers for a further two 2014 meetings (nobody seemed to know if those two meetings were held and no minutes could be found). The minutes of six of the 17 listed meetings could not be found either. Some meetings lasted less than 10 minutes and two of them only lasted for two minutes. Unsurprisingly, at most of the meetings the committee was asked to note formally that the executive (the Ministry of Health) had not identified any matters that required the consideration of the committee.
Really? Were there no matters involving public health issues, factors underlying the health of people and communities, promotion of public health or monitoring of public health requiring attention?
Prof Skegg rightly found it ‘‘chilling the ministry carefully engineered what can only be described as a charade, designed to subvert the purpose of an Act of Parliament’’.
Has the Covid19 pandemic been enough to produce some long overdue public health evangelism from the Government and understanding of the importance of proper independent advice?
Farce and futility may be forgivable among family and friends at our informal show debriefings, but there is nothing funny about pretending public health is irrelevant. Even the Christchurch Cheat knows the value of reducing sugar intake.