Are you arguing that a complete, healthy evening meal should cost less in Tesco than a packet of crisps? That's not sensible or helpful, or even the underlying problem.

And anyway wouldn't something like bulk rice or porridge be cheaper?

Obesity has nothing to do with what you eat but with how much of it you eat.

> And anyway wouldn't something like bulk rice or porridge be cheaper?

But would it be healthier? A giant lump of carb laced with arsenic?

Crisps are already a giant lump of carbohydrates, but I wasn't arguing they were healthier, I was saying that making a entire healthy meal in a supermarket cheaper than a packet of crisps is not realistic.

If you were making a statement on poverty, I agree with you. Too many people are poor.

I was joking about the bloody crisps, of course :) That being said, many studies link obesity and income inequality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733121/

Brittish? I'll never be able to think of crisps as dinner.

And wouldn't noodlesoup be even cheaper, and healtier too?

> And wouldn't noodlesoup be even cheaper, and healtier too?

That would depend on if the crisps were fried in transfats. Otherwise they both end up as a ball of diabetes-causing carb covered in salt.

'British humour … carries a strong element of satire aimed at "the absurdity of everyday life".'

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_humour

The point is that stuff like crisps is way cheaper than it should be, making it an option for poor people when stretching their budget. I hope people don't actually eat it for dinner ;) Noodle soup is healthier but still not healthy. Most cheap noodles soups are full of the "wrong" kinds of fats and sugar.