Eat Yourself Fitter: is a vegetarian diet healthier than eating meat?

People adopt a vegetarian diet for a variety of reasons - concern for the environment, economic and world hunger concerns, compassion for animals, belief in nonviolence, food preferences, health, religious beliefs. I want to consider the health consequences of vegetarian diets: are vegetarians deficient in certain nutrients or do they, in fact, live longer than their meat-eating fellow humans?  Perhaps a more important question is this: can we humans get all the nutrition we need for non-animal sources?  Is the slaughter of animals a necessity or a choice?

 Human beings have been eating meat throughout recorded history and beyond. Indeed, meat is identified alongside fish, eggs and beans as an important source of protein in a healthy diet as recommended by those charged with protecting the nation’s health. It is a rich source of nutrients central to human health which are less readily found in a meat-free diet, including zinc, calcium, iron, ω-3 fatty acids, and vitamins D and B12.

Vitamin B12 is of particular significance as the only food sources for it are animal-based.  Deficiency in vitamin B12 is linked to anaemia, nerve damage, heart disease and pregnancy complications. 

For a strict vegetarian or vegan, vitamin B12 needs to be added to their diet through fortified foods and supplements, just as is recommended for everyone over the age of fifty regardless of whether they eat meat. However, one study found that 92% of vegans and 47% of lacto-ovo vegetarians were deficient in this critical nutrient. One study even found an association between vegetarian diet and three chronic diseases: allergies, cancers and mental illness.

Having considered these drawbacks to a meat-free diet, perhaps it is surprising to read that vegetarians live longer. Several years longer, according to one well-publicised study which found vegetarians within its sample had a 12% lower risk of dying over the study than meat-eaters. Although pesco-vegetarians came out on top in the life length stakes, the study found that a range of vegetarian diets, from vegan to those who eat eggs and dairy products, appear to be healthier than those “dominated by processed foods and meats”.

These results, although startlingly, reflect many others which have found that vegetarians tend to have lower total and LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure and lower body mass index (BMI), all of which are associated with longevity and a reduced risk for many chronic illnesses. Vegan and vegetarian diets also protect against obesity and the risk of type 2 diabetes.

However, this does not necessarily mean that a vegetarian diet in itself causes the attendant health benefits.  Studies showing these benefits for vegetarians are frequently accused of healthy user bias – this argument basically suggests that, 

“People who engage in one behavior that is perceived as healthy are more likely to engage in other behaviors that are healthy”.  

The implication is that vegetarians are more likely to exercise regularly and to eat fruit and vegetables, while at the same time less likely to engage in unhealthy activities such as smoking, excessive drinking, etc., than the populations to which they are being compared.  They are also likely to remove refined sugar, refined grains, trans fats and many processed foods for their diet.  Although the vegetarians have better health, like the study showing an association with allergies, mental illness and cancers, the available data cannot prove that omitting meat from their diet caused these differences.

  

The healthy user bias criticism seems to be gain credibility from a study of vegetarians and non-vegetarians who were health store customers (and therefore assumed to be equally likely to exhibit behaviours conducive to good health) which failed to find a significant difference in the longevity of these two groups, or the instance of heart disease or stroke. However, the scientists who conducted the study acknowledged that “The validation study suggested that subjects' diets did change during the first few years of follow up in respect to vegetarian diet” and that “Changes in dietary habits would be expected to result in underestimation of any associations found.”  This could be why the study initially found a significant link between health benefits and a vegetarian diet, but on follow up ten years later, this link had fallen to a level deemed statistically insignificant.

What can we conclude from this often contradictory information?  Is a vegetarian diet healthier than those including meat, or do those stereotypes of pale, nutrient-deficient lettuce-munchers hold water?  There are people ready to champion the cause of superior vegetarian health, while others are equally passionate in arguing the benefits of eating meat. The nutritional advantages of meat are easily compensated for in a healthy vegetarian or even vegan diet, and that word “healthy” is key:  all the health benefits associated with a vegetarian diet – longer life, lower risk of heart disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes, etc – are dependent on a varied and well-balanced range of food and nutrients being consumed.  It is possible to eat a vegetarian diet as unhealthy as any meat-dominated one, just as it is possible to eat very healthily and still include meat.  Indeed, for optimal health, many nutritionists seem to favour a well-balanced diet including some fish, poultry and even a small amount of unprocessed red meat, if only because such a diet requires less attention to nutrition than vegetarianism and is therefore easier to manage.  A good example of this is the ‘Mediterranean diet’, rich in legumes, nuts, fruits, vegetables and whole grains, as well as olive oil, seafood and moderate wine consumption, but very little red meat.

So, a vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest, but seems to share much of its benefits with other healthy, balanced eating plans which require less effort. If you are looking only to improve your health, perhaps a diet including some unprocessed meat and fish might be an easier choice, especially if you really can’t live without the occasional juicy steak or the thought of never again eating fresh-grilled sardines is just insufferable.  However, if you have other reasons for deciding to cut animal-based food out of your diet, you can be confident that your health would not be adversely affected by even a well-planned vegan diet.  To quote Adam Blais of the ‘Debunking Nutrition’ website,

“If we lived in a world where supplements were not available and we had to rely on our present food supply, then advising vegans to consume animal products might make more sense from a nutritional standpoint. However, based on the current reality and the scientific literature, a well-educated vegan can follow a whole foods plant-based diet without fear of any nutrient deficiencies.”

The idea of needing to take nutritional supplements alongside one’s food may not sound appealing, but it is the reality of life for many people over the age of fifty, regardless of their preferred diet.  As to the question regarding whether there is a nutritional necessity for humans to eat meat and other foods derived from animals, perhaps it would be helpful if a large association of health professionals and nutritionists reviewed all the data available and came to an official position on the matter. Luckily for us, the Dieticians of Canada and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as the American Dietetic Association) have done exactly that:

“Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.”

Should we unconditionally support our troops?

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.“ George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism

This week has seen a number of events designed to honour British servicemen and war veterans. As part of these events, we are exhorted to „Support Our Troops“ and are reminded of their courage and the sacrifice they continue to make. We are informed of how they are „busy working around the world, promoting peace, delivering aid, tackling drug smugglers and providing security and fighting terrorism.“

It all sounds jolly inspiring, doesn't it? Sadly, this rather trite assessment of the role of the British armed forces conflicts painfully with images of death and destruction beamed into UK homes over the past ten years. The on-going 'War on Terror' has seen Britain firmly supporting the foreign policy of the United States with or without the approval of the UN, including the invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was particularly unpopular. When Tony Blair asked parliament to vote in favour of it, a massive popular outcry culminated in as many as two million men and women marching through London to express their opposition in February 2003.  In the face of this resistance, the UK government tried to convince the general public and the Members of Parliament that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMDs) capable of being launched against the UK in '45 minutes'. This was in spite of the UN inspectors' reports which had led then US Secretary of State Colin Powell to state only two years earlier that:

"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Many felt the proposed attack would be in violation of the same international law and the UN Charter which the Iraqi dictator was accused of breaching, a view later espoused by many legal experts, as well as former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix  The then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, stated that the the invasion of Iraq was „not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.“ .

Despite failing to secure a resolution from the UN backing their proposed military intervention, in a wonderful victory for democracy and the rule of law, the invasion went ahead.

After the initial rush of an easy victory over Saddam Hussein's forces and an apparent welcome from his oppressed population, soon the people of the UK were faced with daily news reports of resistance to the occupying forces, mounting casualties, civilian deaths and even the involvement of British servicemen in torture and abuse of suspected enemy combatants.  To the surprise of almost no-one, the claims about WMDs proved false and the justifications for the conflict wore increasingly thin. Soon it became apparent that a decision to invade Iraq had been taken in Washington and agreed by London first, then the faulty intelligence on WMDs had been used to justify the decision.

In the face of this torrent of bad news and the fact that it was becoming harder to deny that the government had lied to the people, the remaining popular support for the wars and the men fighting them dwindled. Alarmed, the government announced a number of intiatives to boost morale in the armed forces and to promote public support for the troops and the unpopular campaigns in which they were engaged. Government initiatives included home-coming parades, permission for off-duty servicemen to wear their uniforms in public,  and the institution of Veterans Day, now renamed Armed Forces Day.

This year, as well as the usual parades, fly-pasts and displays of military equipment,  Armed Forces Day included veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars carrying the Olympic torch on several legs of its relay journey around the UK.  It is common knowledge that the Olympic torch relay was introduced at the Berlin games of 1936. The Nazis wanted to link their games to their ancient Greek predecessors in a way which also highlighted the connection in their racial theory between the 'Aryan' race and Ancient Greece.  The use of a flaming torch also sat well with their penchant for torchlit parades.  Media coverage of the relay was carefully controlled by the Minister for Propaganda, Josef Goebbels.

So successful was this innovation that, minus any mention of Aryan racial superiority, it has been retained by subsequent organisers of the Olympic Games.. This year, the London 2012 organisers tell us that: "8,000 inspirational people will carry the Olympic Flame as it journeys across the UK... inspiring millions of people watching in their community, in the UK and worldwide." What could be more inspiring than war veterans overcoming their injuries to carry this symbol of.... of what?  Peace and unity through sport?  The Olympic Truce, perhaps?

 Tradition has it that in 776 BC King Iphitos of Elis was told by the Oracle at Delphi to stage the Olympic Games every 4 years so as to break the cycle of civil war between the Greek city states. The modern games incorporated this idea into its charter and in 2000 the International Olympic Committee established the International Olympic Truce Foundation with the goal of reviving the ancient tradition of the Olympic Truce. Last October Lord Coe tabled a motion signed by all 193 UN member states that called on nations to promote peace, development and reconciliation in trouble-torn regions.

How can the use of the Olympic torch relay to publicise a military PR exercise be during an ongoing war "promote peace, development and reconciliation in trouble-torn regions"?  Such cynical propaganda use of the torch relay to encourage support for Britain's armed forces, and by extention their deployment, may be something of which Josef Goebbels might approve, but it makes a mockery the ethos of the games and flies in the face of the pledge Britain made to honour the Olympic Truce.

All of this follows hot on the heels of the unveiling of a monument in London's Green Park to Bomber Command on the 28^th of June.  The World War II RAF bomber crews suffered a casualty rate of more than 50%, reflected in the 55,573 who died in action. Despite their undoubted courage, unlike the men of Fighter Command, the crews of Bomber Command received no campaign medal at end of World War II. Only now, some 67 years later, has their sacrifice been recognised with an official monument. Anyone unfamiliar with the case might well ask why.

The answer is deeply controversial. Bomber Command were tasked with an unsettling mission: area-bombing, the indiscriminate bombing of vast areas including the deliberate targetting of civilians. The aim was to break the morale of the German people, destroy their support for the Nazi war machine and thus to bring the war to as speedy a close as possible. If it were successful, the lives of tens of thousands of Allied troops would be saved.

  Was this a price worth paying? The consensus of opinion amongst Allied commanders and heads of government was that it was. However, after the 1945 firebombing of Dresden in raids which killed at least 25,000 civilians, Churchill described area-bombing as „mere acts of terror and wanton destruction“. 

 

In language eerily reminiscent of that used by Winston Churchill, the Nuremberg Principles list „wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages“ as a war crime.

Speaking of a similar attack on Tokyo, Robert McNamara, (US Secretary of Defense 1961-68) who served with the USAAF in its Office of Statistical Control, later said:
“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo — men, women and children. LeMay[Gen. Curtis E. LeMay of the Army’s Air Forces] said ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He — and I’d say I — were behaving as war criminals.”


Armed Forces Day and the cynical use of the Olympic torch relay amount to gimmicks designed to distract from harsh realities of what the British armed forces actually do. We are invited to celebrate and honour the sacrifice and the courage of our servicemen and women, but not to ask why.  The government lied to the people of Great Britain and manipulated and misled the media to convince parliament to approve the military actions they had already promised their US allies.   Britain justifies her actions against other countries by accusing them of violating the same international laws she herself completely disregards when they are contrary to British strategic interests.

Following the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, life for ordinary Iraqis and Afghans is not demonstrably better, with regular reports of the use of torture by the Iraqi security forces and ongoing violence.  Even while the UK celebrated Armed Forces Day, fifteen civilians were dying violently in Iraq.  Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, opium production is through the roof,  women are resorting to self-immolation to avoid rape and forced marriage and civilians bombed out of their homes starve in refugee camps.  Terror attacks against the US and allied nations have increased and Pakistan has been destabilised increasing the likelihood that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of the Taliban,  or worse still a global-Jihadi group like al-Qaida should they return to Afghanistan.  Is this what British soldiers died and go on dying for?

While the image of Lance-Bombardier Ben Parkinson, a man of undoubted courage and strength of character, carrying the Olympic torch would elicit the sympathy of the most hard-hearted observer, surely it should make us all ask why this man was sent to Afghanistan and how many more will follow in his footsteps.  Do you, reading this, feel you know the answers to these questions?   Do you believe that his sacrifice has made your life safer?  Do we not owe him a debt, and is that debt not the obligation to ask these questions of our government, to demand an end to the killing?  Should we take the stance of charities like 'Help for Heroes' who raise money for rehabilitation centres for veterans, but refuse to angage with any critical consideration of the circumstances which led to their injuries, or should we back the likes of  'Iraq Veterans Against the War' who combine campaigns for support for veterans with demands for justice for civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and are heavily critical of the war itself?  What is so special about Britain's strategic interests, as opposed to almost every other country, that requires military intervention?  What prize has all this bloodshed won?  Are Britain's strategic interests even your interests? 

So, I ask whether we should unconditionally support our armed forces. Every Briton wants to be proud of our country, our community and the role we play in it.  We long to be able to believe our government when it claims to foster peace, justice and democracy.  If military operations are necessary, we want to see them executed within international law.  The evidence is clear that none of these things are true.  The Nuremberg Principles declared that the „planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties“ constitute crimes against peace, and yet our armed forces did exactly that when ordered to do so by the government.  On top of the military casualties, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been tortured, abused and murdered as a result, their homes destroyed and families ripped apart.

 I claim that supporting the armed forces unconditionally makes the chances of them being deployed into action more likely, especially in legally and morally ambiguous circumstances. As a result, leaving aside the implications for enemy combatants and civilians in the theatre of conflict, more British servicemen will be killed or suffer physical and mental injury.

Let me explain what I mean: Somebody might take the point of view that military servicemen do not have have a choice in how they are deployed, they must simply do their job in a professional manner. Therefore, even if we are opposed to their deployment, once it has been enacted we should give them our full support and try to make sure they have the equipment they need to do the job and are properly looked after if they are injured or when they retire. This is the point of view of 'Help for Heroes', if I understand it correctly.

The problem is, whoever we are fighting against is entitled to take exactly the same position. It says, once we are committed to war, forget who's right and who's wrong ('leave politics out of it'), we will fight it to the bitter end. You can see this thinking at work in the killing fields of the WWI, for example.  In any case, following superior orders - otherwise known as the Nuremberg Defence - does not absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions, philosophically or legally.

I have talked about how the Allies tried to bring WWII to a quicker successful conclusion by breaking the support of the German people for the war. It is very difficult for even a totalitarian government to conduct a war without popular support. Another example would be the anti-Vietnam War movement in the US which forced the government to conclude an unwinnable war which had cost millions of lives and left Southeast Asia devastated, with effects of which are still felt to this day. Wouldn't it be in the best interests of the people who serve in the armed forces for the public to oppose their deployment even when they are engaged in action in order to make sure the government ends it as soon as possible and thinks twice before doing it again?

Albert Einstein famously said: „Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war“.  Bomber Command targeted civilians during World War II because they knew that the Wehrmacht couldn't fight if the people weren't behind them. Without popular support, the Nazi regime could not have carried out its horrific crimes to the extent it did. It was those who took the decisions to attack neighbouring countries and to perpetrate atrocities that bore the chief responsibility in Nazi Germany, just as the politicians who ordered the Iraq invasion are accountable for it.  However, the Nuremberg Trials established that following orders does not absolve a person of responsibility for their actions.  Military service means surrendering much of one's personal freedom, but every serviceman and woman has the right to conscientious objection, even if the armed forces have been criticised for failing to inform recruits of this.  Everyone who has joined up in the past eight years has done so knowing that they may be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.  Armed Forces Day and Help for Heroes tells them they are heroes for doing this.


There can be little doubt that the Iraq War violated international law and many questions have been asked about the conflict in Afghanistan also.  If the aim of these expeditions was to improve UK security, protect human rights and to improve the living conditions of ordinary Afghans and Iraqis, then they have failed on all fronts.  Instead the authority of international law and the United Nations have been undermined and we have been left with humanitarian disasters.  If we support the armed forces under these circumstances, what would it take to make us say „enough is enough“?

Army vs Rioters: Criminality and Legitimate Violence among Deprived Youths

Message to all the rioters .......... . u wanna be big men and fight to the death , well get your sorry little arses on the next plane to Afghanistan and stand alongside real men , they're called soldiers and they are fighting a war unlike you bunch of pathetic wastes of space !!!!

We've all seen them. Trite pieces of regurgitated propaganda masquerading as social commentary like the one above appearing in our news feed on various social networks. Perhaps some of your contacts expressed support for one of the pages set up by the BNP demanding that the government „bring our troops home“ and unleash them onto the streets.

The contrasting imagery of soldiers and rioters jolted my memory of something I had read a while back about the armed forces recruiting most of their enlisted men and women from deprived areas. So I did a little research and came across a report called „Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom“.

One of the findings of the report confirmed what I had suspected:

„Non-officer recruitment draws mostly on young people from 16 years of age living in disadvantaged communities, with many recruits joining as a last resort.“

But this was only the start.

The UK is the only country in the European Union which recruits minors as young as 16 into its armed forces. Although under 18s are required to provide written consent from their parents or guardians, the report found that neither the recruit nor their legal guardians were provided with enough information about the risks of service in the armed forces, or the rights and responsibilities of enlisted men to be able to make a fully informed decision.

For example, they are unlikely to be told that male soldiers under 20 years of age face a 50% greater risk of suicide than those of similar profile in the civilian population, or that there is a disproportionately large number of suicides among discharged veterans who have seen combat. 20% of soldiers want to leave the army at the earliest opportunity, but must wait until they have served up to six years due to terms of service which the House of Commons Defence Committee’s Duty of Care report of 2005 criticised as ‘unnecessarily restrictive’ and ‘counter productive'.

In the knowledge that joining up is not a career decision without drawbacks and certainly not one to be taken lightly, we might ask who is a typical recruit into the ranks of our glorious armed services.

„While roughly 45% of all young people leave school with 5 GCSE subjects graded A-C, only 17% of all Army recruits in 2003–04 had English at A-C level, with the figure for Maths at about 10%. On average Army recruits have 0.9 of a GCSE at grade A-C.“

„The army’s own research suggests that up to 50% of recruits have literacy and numeracy skills at Entry Level 3 (equivalent to those of an average 11 year-old) or Entry Level 2 (equivalent to an average 7 year-old).“

Using information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Welsh Assembly Member Leanne Wood showed that the army was 50% more likely to visit schools in the most deprived areas of Wales than to visit those in less deprived areas, and further research has shown that army recruiters deliberately target schools in deprived areas.

Little surprise, then, that most non-officer recruits joined up after an extended period of unemployment or after being able to find only casual work. One study found that 40% of recruits reported that they had taken the Queen's shilling only as a last resort.

Now, leaving aside moral or ethical considerations, the armed forces does offer an opportunity of employment for marginalised young people who would otherwise face little prospect of gainful employment.  Although it is a significantly lower percentage than in civilian employment, 64% of military personnel reported that they were satisfied with their jobs.  However, the report points out that this „glosses over the injustice of young people being forced by circumstance to make career choices from a position of socio-economic weakness“ and that this „ also suggests that defence of the realm depends on the existence of a socio-economic underclass“.   How shameful that our government exploits the desperation of young people and provides them with no legitimate way to make a living other than to take a job where they risk:

• A one-in-five chance of, if a young woman or a woman of low rank, having a particularly upsetting experience of unwanted sexual behaviour directed at her.

• A one-in-six chance of contracting post-traumatic stress disorder if involved in more than five firefights.

• A one-in-seven chance of feeling that he or she has been discriminated against in any 12 month period.

• A one-in-ten chance of being bullied during initial (Phase 1) training.

• A one-in-eleven chance of working a 70-hour week.

• A one-in-thirteen chance of being bullied or harassed in any 12-month period of his or her service, on average.

• A one-in-thirty chance (if a woman) of being sexually assaulted one or more times in any 12-month period.

• A one-in-thirty-five chance of being discharged for ‘service no longer required’ (i.e.being made redundant) on average in each year of service after training.

• A one-in-fifty chance of becoming homeless after discharge.

So, our brave and honourable servicemen and women in Afghanistan have more in common with the „mindless thugs“ destroying their own neighbourhoods in the major urban centres of England during the past few days than one might think.  Both have chosen to act out of desperation in an effort to escape the hopelessness of their environment.  Both perpetrate violence, destroying property and livelihoods and ending lives in the process.  If destroying the homes and businesses of strangers in North London is, in the words of David Cameron „sickening“ and „criminality, pure and simple“, what is so honourable about destroying the homes and businesses of strangers in Kandahar?  Somehow, I don't think Afghans enjoy seeing their homes, livelihoods and communities obliterated by youths from Britian's most deprived areas any more than the residents of Clapham or Salford do.

Why Should I Pay for You to go to University?

A bachelor's degree is a very expensive piece of paper. According to Lord Browne's report on Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education in England, on average an undergraduate degree course at a UK university costs £7,000 per student per year to run. The Higher Education Funding Council for England, suggests a slightly higher figure of £7,300 per year.

For the graduate, higher education has obvious benefits. David Willetts, the Universities and Science Minister, has emphasised that over their lifetime graduates earn an average of £100,000 more than people who do not have a degree.

In addition to their higher pay, graduates face a lower risk of unemployment, are more likely to be in high-level positions using their university-acquired skills, receive more job-related training and also have greater promotion prospects than non-graduates.

Graduates aren't just more affluent than those who haven't studied at university. By the age of 30, a person educated to GCSE level is 75% more likely to be a smoker, while graduates are less likely to be obese, with 3% lower Body Mass Index on average. In addition, graduates are between 35% (women) and 55% (men) less likely to suffer from depression.

In summary, we can say that, on average:

• It costs £21-22,000 per student to run a three year degree programme
• A graduate will take home £100,000 more over the course of their career than a non-graduate
• Graduates face lower prospects of unemployment and higher chances of promotion, and will receive more job-related training
• Degree holders enjoy better physical and mental health

Clearly the graduate enjoys great personal benefits from tertiary education. So why should the taxpayer, who in most cases will not have had the privilege of studying at a university themselves, pay for it?

Let's look at those private benefits again. The extra £100,000 a graduate earns over their lifetime is calculated after tax.  In fact, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) annual report 'Education at a Glance' states that "The net public return is almost three times the cost of investing in tertiary education". The £100,000 figure also does not take into account the cost of tuition fees and maintenance loans, currently estimated to leave each graduate with £25,000 of debt, rising in many cases to over £40,000 under the new fees system which will be implemented from 2012.  The BBC also published a study which showed that, when interest is factored in, under the new system graduates face paying back double what they borrowed – over £80,000.  This may be a worse case scenario and, hopefully, won't be a typical graduate experience, but it has left some financial advisors questioning whether the benefits of a degree are worth the cost.

The side benefits of higher education enjoyed by the graduate have a monetary value for the taxpayer. The lower chances of unemployment and better health mean that the graduate is less likely to be reliant on public healthcare or income support and therefore draw less on public money.

The benefits of higher education are also passed onto the children of graduates. Graduate families (defined as families where at least one parent is educated to degree level) are more engaged with their child’s education – they are more involved with school work, more often read to the child at night when they were younger, and more regularly attend parents evenings. As a result, the children are more likely to have good attendance at school and are far more likely to do well at GCSE.

Beyond the family, graduates are around 3 times more likely to be a member of a voluntary organisation than someone educated to GCSE level or below,and are between 30% and 40% more likely to hold positive attitudes to race and gender equality. They were also less blindly accepting of authority and less politically cynical.

Universities play a key role in social mobility. Social mobility's effect of making the UK a fairer and more meritocratic society is seen by many as an end in itself, but a study by Boston Consulting Group found that improving levels of social mobility for future generations in the UKwould boost the economy by up to £140 billion a year by 2050 in today’s prices, or an additional four per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over and above any other growth.

Finally, our economy needs graduates. Employers benefit from university education through a more productive and healthy workforce; highly-skilled workers more quickly adapt to new tasks and technologies, and are themselves a direct source of innovation. Further, there is compelling evidence to show how education investment results in higher economic growth rates for the economy as a whole, and one report attributed higher education as being the most important in OECD countries. Indeed, the Browne Report quotes research showing that in the UK between 2000 and 2007, the increase in employed university graduates accounted for 6% of growth in the private sector or £4.2bn of extra output.

In summary, we can say that, on average:

• Graduates contribute more in tax than non-graduates, more than enough to cover the cost of their education
• Better health and employment prospects mean graduates draw less on public health and income support programmes
• Graduates are 30% and 40% more likely to hold positive attitudes to race and gender equality and are less blindly accepting of authority and less politically cynical
• Universities drive social mobility, making society fairer and boosting the economy
• Investment in higher education results in higher economic growth rates

At a time when soaring tuition fees and graduate debt lead both school leavers and financial advisors questioning whether or not a degree is worth the cost, when the UK's economy faces rising competion from highly-skilled workers in China and India - the so-called Global Skills Race - perhaps the real question we should be asking is not whether the taxpayer should fund higher education, but can we afford not to.