The line graph illustrates how much of five protein-rich foods the average person in one country consumed annually from 1990 to 2020, measured in kilograms.
Overall, poultry and pulses became increasingly popular, with poultry replacing beef and lamb as the most widely eaten food, while consumption of the latter halved. Pork and fish, in contrast, changed relatively little over the thirty years.
In 1990, beef and lamb led the group at 24 kg per person, twice the figure for poultry (12 kg). Thereafter, however, the two moved in opposite directions. Poultry climbed without interruption, overtaking beef and lamb between 2000 and 2005 and reaching 29 kg by 2020, whereas beef and lamb fell continuously to just 12 kg, half its original level and the lowest of the five in 2020.
Pulses began as the least consumed item, at only 4 kg, and grew slowly until 2005 before accelerating to 13 kg by the end of the period. Pork, meanwhile, remained between 16 and 19 kg throughout, peaking in 2000, while fish and seafood fluctuated, alternately rising and falling between 12 and 15 kg and finishing at 15 kg, one kilogram above its starting point.
How a government divides its budget is always contested, and spending on the arts is often the first item to be questioned. While some argue that music, theatre and painting deserve public support, others insist that all available funds should go to hospitals and schools. In my view, essential services must take priority, but a modest level of arts funding is still justified.
Those who favour public services make a powerful case. Healthcare and education meet basic needs: patients waiting months for an operation or children taught in overcrowded classrooms suffer real and measurable harm. When resources are limited, it is difficult to defend subsidising an opera house that is enjoyed mainly by wealthier citizens, who could afford to pay full ticket prices themselves. From this perspective, arts funding is a luxury that only a country with no pressing social problems can justify.
Supporters of the arts, however, argue that culture is not a luxury but part of what makes a society worth living in. Museums, orchestras and theatres preserve a nation’s heritage and identity, and many of them could not survive on ticket sales alone. They also bring practical returns: cultural attractions draw tourists, create jobs and help to regenerate run-down areas, so public money spent on them is partly recovered.
I believe both positions contain some truth, and the answer lies in proportion rather than choice. The arts usually receive a very small fraction of national budgets, so withdrawing that money would hardly transform hospitals, yet it could destroy many cultural institutions. Governments should therefore guarantee core services first, but continue to fund the arts at a modest level, directing support towards projects that reach the widest possible public, such as free concerts in schools or regional galleries.
In short, a society should never neglect health and education, but nor should it treat culture as dispensable.