/ Labour urges sugar and fat limits

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
dale1968 - on 05 Jan 2013
surely this amounts to prohibition? control going to far http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20914685
bouldery bits - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Ridiculous. I'll just eat 2!
ranger*goy on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Does this mean they are going to ban cheese? They cant ban cheese!!!
Douglas Griffin - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to ranger*goy:

It's the thin end of the wedge, I tell you.
Timmd on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

I think it's a very good idea. It isn't as if people can't add more sugar at home, and many won't add more sugar, and less childeren will have teeth and obesity problems. Hooray, I think.

Who's going to miss the fat in thier food if there's a limit placed?

If we want to keep a non privatised health service, which is a good thing, I think, I think we need things like this to happen, and possibly pricing of alcohol approaching that which they have in Norway as well, or at least some raising of the price of alcohol, as well as other things happening aimed at reducing the amount people drink.

If we don't the danger is that the NHS won't be able to look after as all adequately enough. :-(

Just so you know where i'm coming from, I think that the idea of reducing or stopping the benefits of people who don't exercise is a horrible one.
SAF - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: The food companies who need to sell to make profits would have to think of innovative ways of making food tasty and appealing without as much sugar and fat , in order that people want to eat it. For example herbs, spices and decent ingredients, people will still need to eat, so the food industry would just have to adjust.
Timmd on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:It'd still need to be affordable too, which would help keep prices low.
balmybaldwin - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

I think this is a shockingly bad idea. The principle should be to make people take responsiblity for their own consumption.

I like full fat cheese for example, "lighter" versions taste like plastic, and are heavily processed. If I want I could eat it for breakfast lunch and dinner, but I don't, I eat it sparingly and enjoy it as a treat. Why should people with self control not be allowed this pleasure?

If you were to do this, why would you not also ban alcohol, to prevent alcoholics being able to drink?

Timmd on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:Fair point, I hadn't thought of full fat cheese and things like that. I have a feeling that it's the more 'processed' foods which are the target, which the food companies have been dragging thier feet about making healthier to eat.

It depends on how things work out, but I agree with you if it applies to all foods, though if it's just foods aimed at children it could be a good thing.
Timmd on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:It's childrens' cereals which are the possible target.
colin8ll on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> The principle should be to make people take responsiblity for their own consumption.

But the reality is too many people are not taking responsibility for their consumption and I don't like having to pay higher taxes to treat their resultant health problems.

Great idea I think. 'Choice' is an outdated political idea. The government should help us all out and keep us from turkey twizlers.

Timmd on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to colin8ll:Remember that climbing would be high up on the list of things people shouldn't be doing in the eyes of a lot of people though.

One could ask why carefull people should pay for the treatment of injured climbers, it's not a simple area.
Milesy - on 05 Jan 2013
sugar = yes
fats = no

Fats dont make people fat. French Paradox.

Sugar is an obesity epedemic. "Low fat" food laden with sugar. A contradiction in all manners.
robandian - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: the government in power need to make cooking / understanding what food is and what we need to eat healthy a core subject in school and an essential GCSE alongside maths and english. That way we will all start to understand why we get fat and what we can do about it.
stroppygob - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: Nanny knows best!! Now shut up and eat your salt-free, low-fat, sugarless, organic, lentil and galric surprise.
Timmd on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to dale1968) Nanny knows best!! Now shut up and eat your salt-free, low-fat, sugarless, organic, lentil and galric surprise.

I think you might be merging politics and 'certain kinds of person' there?

You get organic liking lentil eaters who are anarchists and want to overthrow the state just as much as you get those who think Nanny knows best.
cat88 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: just stop making clothes above a certain size and put triple tax on junk food
frankcp87 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to cat88: or make people over a certain BMI pay for there hospital bills.
dale1968 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to frankcp87: why not reduce the amount of alcohol in drink if were going down this road? or speed limiters in cars?
Jaffacake - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

I assume anything like this would not apply to anything that you could consider an ingredient for something else, but just processed foods.

On one hand I kinda understand, I guess people don't really realise how much sugar and fat is in some things.

On the other hand I love chocolates and cakes, OK I am a fatty but I assume there are plenty of people who aren't overweight who also enjoy such things, why should they be unable to get the treats they enjoy in order to protect the children of parents who don't understand nutrition?

Having a range of options also suits diets, low fat food tends to be horribly high in sugar to compensate, removing the higher fat (and lower sugar) versions of things would make it hard for people that need to reduce the carbs in their diet (for which there are various medical reasons to do so, I don't just mean people trying a low carb diet to lose weight).

I assume some people are allergic to certain sweeteners so sugar free options may not be an option for them either.

Surely a better way to use the law to try and increase health would be using it to increase the availability of healthier alternatives? For example in virtually every pub, bar or restaurant if you want a low calorie drink you have the choice of diet coke, water (with or without bubbles) or slimline tonic. Even the cordials are usually the high sugar version. I'd much rather see places serving drinks be forced to offer a greater range of low calorie soft drinks (/mixers), I guess because that's something that would make it easier for me to reduce calorie intake rather than just banning things I am fully aware are bad for me.
ads.ukclimbing.com
cuppatea on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Are things really that bad that it's no longer enough to educate people and we must control them through limiting the ingredients in their food?

What's next? Turnstiles by the side of the road so they can only cross when there are no cars coming?
Siward on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to colin8ll:
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)

>
> Great idea I think. 'Choice' is an outdated political idea. The government should help us all out and keep us from turkey twizlers.

Choice or prescription? WOuld you rather that your local council instituted a meals on wheels service whereby you were served once a day with the authorised, nutritionally balanced and tasty gruel, thus guaranteeing you health and a long life? No shops required.

Me, I'll stick to my freedom fries :)
deepsoup - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Jaffacake:
> I assume anything like this would not apply to anything that you could consider an ingredient for something else, but just processed foods.

Don't come around here getting all sensible about this, they're trying to BAN CHEESE! Outrage. Nanny state. Fume. Froth. etc...
deepsoup - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to cat88:
> just stop making clothes above a certain size

Curiously stroppygob, hypocrite of this parish, was advocating something very like that on another thread.

Apparently its ok to tell clothes manufacturers they're not allowed to sell a fat person a nice shirt, but its an outrageous infringement of civil liberties to tell Kellogg's they're not allowed to sell them a breakfast 'cereal' consisting of 37% refined sugar (and aggressively market it to their children as a 'healthy' product).
thin bob on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:
A lot of fat, sugar & salt is 'hidden' and added because it's cheap & makes 'uninteresting' food appealing.

I broadly support it, but suspect that it'll end up like soft drinks in pubs: more expensive than alcohol because it's a captive market.
Simon4 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to cuppatea:

> What's next? Turnstiles by the side of the road so they can only cross when there are no cars coming?

But don't you understand, you are not an adult, capable of taking your own decisions, exercising personal responsibility and dealing with the consequences. You are a silly, irresponsible child who needs to be spoken to firmly but gently, by an all-powerful, omnipresent quango staffed entirely by extremely well-paid Labour supporters (minimum salary £120k, index-linked pension, guaranteed annual increments, handsome pay-off in addition on leaving, only 3 days every other week attendance required - perhaps one or several of the clan Kinnock is available to staff it or "Lord" Prescott, or maybe even Lord Mandelson). After all, the country is so awash with money and so prosperous that is not like the (vast), costs will be missed.

Protect fools from the consequences of their own folly and you will fill the world with fools. But that's all right, because it protects the NHS. Nothing about what will protect us from the NHS, see Stafford and dozens of other scandals.
dale1968 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to thin bob: but, all they do is pour sugar on if its not sweet enough! what are we to ban sugar? logic and understanding has been thrown oot of the window..
deepsoup - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:
If you pour a shitload of sugar on your cereal it's difficult to pretend to yourself that there isn't a shitload of sugar in it. Alternatively if you buy a cereal with a shitload of sugar already in there, which is marketed as a 'healthy' product, its very easy.

Of course nobody is suggesting banning sugar, or cheese, or any other cooking ingredient.
Jon Stewart - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Simon4:

Wouldn't you enjoy life more if you inhabited reality, rather than a boring cliched fantasy?
Pursued by a bear - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: Perhaps they should also promote the message that many refined foodstuffs aren't?

T.
Timmd on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to cuppatea:
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
> Are things really that bad that it's no longer enough to educate people and we must control them through limiting the ingredients in their food?
>
> What's next? Turnstiles by the side of the road so they can only cross when there are no cars coming?

It's breakfast cereals which are aimed at children that the idea is about. With regards to childhood obesity, the statistics suggest that things really are that mad.
dale1968 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: most kids dont even bother with breakfast, they wait for the bus and eat confectionery, I know because they throw the rubbish on the ground, how will this bit of labour policy address that? this is so simplistic, most obese people dont bother with breakfast
cuppatea on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

I know ;-) I was just ranting.

I'm finding out about all this carp (anag) now I have a wee sprog.

As an example Petit Filous are aimed at children and according to the local nhs indoctrination specialist contain about 6 teaspoons of sugar per little pot. she was unsure if that was added sugar or natural sugars from fruit, I've yet to research it properly.


Timmd on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:There are problems like food deserts and car usage and the selling off of school playing fields and other things going on I agree.
frankcp87 - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
There's more to it than just diet.
Children don't play like they used to. There were some articles saying the the distance kids venture from there homes has decreased hugely. As well as the increased amount of time kids (and adults) sit in front of computer and tv screens.


"In one generation the proportion of children regularly playing in wild places in the UK has fallen from more than half to fewer than one in 10"


"Eleven- to 15-year-olds in Britain now spend, on average, half their waking day in front of a screen."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/children-lose-contact-with-nature
Martin W on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

> Just so you know where i'm coming from, I think that the idea of reducing or stopping the benefits of people who don't exercise is a horrible one.

I presume this policy proposed by (Tory) Westminster council is what you're thinking of: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681
frankcp87 - on 06 Jan 2013
Timmd on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Martin W:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> [...]
>
> I presume this policy proposed by (Tory) Westminster council is what you're thinking of: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681

Yes it is.
dale1968 - on 06 Jan 2013
Clarence - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

There was an idea floated in New Scientist and a BBC doco a while ago that stress can cause obesity as well as other health problems. If anyone can find a way to ban stress then I will be right behind them...
ads.ukclimbing.com
ERH - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Since I currently eat cheap muesli and home made vegetable soups (ah, the culinary habits of a poor student!) the person who suggested the gov. could give us all our meals would be fine in my opinion :) I'd probably end up less healthy as a result!
thin bob on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Simon4)
>
> Wouldn't you enjoy life more if you inhabited reality, rather than a boring cliched fantasy?

I know Simon to be an educated, intelligent person. Just not much of a irony or tolerance circuit, it seems. Frothing like bottled Bass! ;-)

thin bob on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to thin bob:
An occasional nice line in imaginative invective & rant. Decent climber/mountaineer (but that's irrelevent on a, um, climbing site ;-) )
DancingOnRock - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: If they slowly reduced the amount of sugar in things over a period of time no one would notice.

I can't see anyone buying a can of coke then adding 7 teaspoons of sugar to it, just to make it drinkable.

Put the tax back on sugar and make it the luxury it used to be.

I think the 2500/2000 calorie guidelines should be revised downwards as well. It's outdated, why would a 5'6" man eat more calories than a 6' woman. It's a nonsensical figure.
stroppygob - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
> (In reply to cat88)
> [...]
>
> Curiously stroppygob, hypocrite of this parish, was advocating something very like that on another thread.

LOL!! My wife made that comment as a not serious suggestion, as I clearly indicated in that thread. Grow up, and stop putting words in other people's mouths.


deepsoup - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> a not serious suggestion, as I clearly indicated in that thread.

Your post in it's entirety:

"My missus had an interesting suggestion, in the same way as Australia has made plain packaging for fags mandatory, no fashionable clothes over size 16 should be made/sold."

Nothing to indicate you weren't being serious. Sorry, you spout a lot of rubbish on here, I didn't realise you don't mean all of it.
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> The principle should be to make people take responsiblity for their own consumption.

It's nice idea and logically should be applied to everything else like alcohol drugs and tobacco.

The problem is in our society that certain elements will just sell anything they can to make money. I was quite shocked at Christmas going into supermarkets and seeing these absolutely massive bars of chocolate for just £7. I immediately thought how irresponsible in light of the current obesity epidemic.

Supermarkets do this all the time though. Recent years has seen a surge in '2 for 1' type promotions, something that originated in the obese world champion, the USA. The more we eat the more money they make.

Ordinary shoppers is going into somewhere where highly specialized psychologists have been working together to get people to buy more of what they want them to buy. It's not a fair fight. Sugar, for instance, is a great ingredient for supermarkets because it's addictive and a preservative.

So I think saying people should take responsibility in these circumstances is unrealistic. Shouldn't the supermarkets also take responsibility for the kind of foods they sell and aggressively market?

Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:Well put, I completely agree.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp: And supermarkets sell sugar in 1kg bags! You can't buy 100% booze in tesco but you can buy as much pure sugar as you want, what's all that about?
dale1968 - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: and double cream!
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: And solid blocks of fat!
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
And supermarkets sell sugar in 1kg bags! You can't buy 100% booze in tesco but you can buy as much pure sugar as you want, what's all that about?

I'm pretty sure I saw a 2kg bag recently and I'm not dead yet. I quite like the phrase "You can't legislate against stupidity". Every year people manage to wire themselves into the national grid stealing copper, get drunk and plough their cars into trees, fail to wash their hands after going to the toilet and catch a nasty bug etc.

No quantity of gentle advice, helpful signage and legislation will stop a really determined person yet poorly thought out rules just end up annoying everyone else.
deepsoup - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:
> yet poorly thought out rules just end up annoying everyone else.

How much would it annoy you if you couldn't buy a children's breakfast cereal that's more than 30% sugar? Wouldn't bother me much. If it really upset you, couldn't just chuck a load more sugar on it yourself?
DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> And supermarkets sell sugar in 1kg bags! You can't buy 100% booze in tesco but you can buy as much pure sugar as you want, what's all that about?
>
> I'm pretty sure I saw a 2kg bag recently and I'm not dead yet. I quite like the phrase "You can't legislate against stupidity". Every year people manage to wire themselves into the national grid stealing copper, get drunk and plough their cars into trees, fail to wash their hands after going to the toilet and catch a nasty bug etc.
>
> No quantity of gentle advice, helpful signage and legislation will stop a really determined person yet poorly thought out rules just end up annoying everyone else.

I think you'll find that the number of people who do those things are in the minority and mostly decreasing, whereas the number of obese people isn't.
Neil Williams - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:

"I immediately thought how irresponsible in light of the current obesity epidemic."

Really? They're just novelties. Someone who eats well and exercises regularly will not end up unhealthy through eating one such bar at Christmas.

"Recent years has seen a surge in '2 for 1' type promotions"

If you don't like these, shop in Aldi etc, they don't do multipacks or bulk discounts at all.

Neil
DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
> (In reply to mkean)
> [...]
>
> How much would it annoy you if you couldn't buy a children's breakfast cereal that's more than 30% sugar? Wouldn't bother me much. If it really upset you, couldn't just chuck a load more sugar on it yourself?

Do people really undrestand what 30% sugar is?

In a regular serving 40g of cereal that's 12g or 2.5 teaspoons. Not a lot really. Until you see how big a serving of 40g is. My kids would probably eat a 120g bowl of breakfast cereal which isn't even half of one of our breakfast bowls. So they're eating 7.5 teaspoons of sugar even before they've left the house.

If you've got kits, try it. Pour out a bowl of cereal then weigh it. You'll be horrified.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: When I read this I thought great!! Whilst they are at it maybe they can look at regulating the vast list of additives in british food (many of which are not used/illegal abroad due to actual/theoretical ill effects). I also assumed it would only apply to processed food. Also maybe to the portion sizes of confectionary sold (ie indivdual mars bars etc.). I love sweets and fully admit once I start I can't stop till the packets empty...my solution...I only by a small "fun size" packet, the problem is that the selection is often limited in the smaller sizes!!

So there I was thinking it was a great idea, and then some said they were going to BAN CHEESE!!!
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: I think that's 30% of the calorific value rather than 30% by weight.
But so what? Label foods correctly (by all means stop kellogs calling the sugary pap healthy), educate people, and then let us eat what we choose.
Alternatively, every 6 months you have a health check at your local supermarket, if you're deemed a fatty you have to use the "special tills" (you get a nice card) and have to pay a fat tax that goes to the nhs.
dale1968 - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: wish I had that much food as a kid.... lucky lucky ..
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:
Whilst they are at it maybe they can look at regulating the vast list of additives in british food (many of which are not used/illegal abroad due to actual/theoretical ill effects).

We've already got some of the worlds strictest evidence based controls on food additives. Which ones would you like to see banned?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tall Clare - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:

Aspartame is one 'murky' substance that springs to mind - I've read bits and bobs that suggest it's brain-rotting, and that straightforward sugar is better for us overall. Doesn't stop me eating products containing it, mind...
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
I like quite a lot of fatty and sugary foods but they are consumed as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle: Why should people who are in a similar position be penalised for others innability to exercise self control or read packets?

There is an expectation in society that we don't do certain things that are obviously hazardous, it is accepted that the M1 is an unsuitable football pitch so why do we treat food differently? There has been a huge wealth of easily accessible* health information available for decades and yet we are still getting fatter. The constituents of a foodstuff are written on the box in English along with RDAs, which is a warning not much harder to understand than the one written on the back of my microwave instructing me not to take off the easily removable cover and poke the insides with a screwdriver.

A large proportion of people who regularly consume an unhealthy quantity of refined sugars do so from soft drinks, but I think banning lemonade would be seen as excessive.

* I'd accept that this information is often of variable quality
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:

From the Lancet...The study, led by Jim Stevenson, a professor of psychology at England's University of Southampton, involved about 300 children in two age groups: 3-year-olds and 8- and 9-year-olds. Over three one-week periods, the children were randomly assigned to consume one of three fruit drinks daily: one contained the amount of dye and sodium benzoate typically found in a British child's diet, a second had a lower concentration of additives, and a third was additive-free. The children spent a week drinking each of the three mixtures, which looked and tasted alike. During each seven-day period, teachers, parents and graduate students (who did not know which drink the kids were getting) used standardized behavior-evaluation tools to size up such qualities as restlessness, lack of concentration, fidgeting and talking or interrupting too much.

Stevenson found that children in both age groups were significantly more hyperactive when drinking the beverage with higher levels of additives.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to mkean)
>
> Aspartame is one 'murky' substance that springs to mind - I've read bits and bobs that suggest it's brain-rotting, and that straightforward sugar is better for us overall. Doesn't stop me eating products containing it, mind...

Gives me abdominal cramps :-( and iy amazing some of the things they feel the need to add it too.
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
Probably one of the better examples, although still not conclusive. While I don't want to tar all of the researchers who have investigated this with the same brush I have seen a fair few who could summarise their research as "We forced aspartame into a rat till it died, therefore aspartame is bad" or "An increased rate of rodent mortality was observed in those test subjects that were run over by a lorry load of aspartame compared to the control group".
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
An interesting counter example is MSG:

Vast swathes of the population report adverse reactions to MSG, lots of them have very similar symptoms yet the vast majority manage to consume naturally occuring glutamates with no effects. Properly controlled studies have shown no effects of MSG yet thousands of people have a psychosomatic reaction to it.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:

HINT HINT IT'S ABOUT CEREALS WHICH ARE AIMED AT CHILDREN HINT HINT

It's not the everyday food stuffs, but cereals which parents may give into buying though pester power without realising quite what's in the food they're feeding thier children.

Good grief, it's not about banning lemonade or full fat cheese, or saying nanny knows best, it's about making cereals marketed at children a little bit healthier so that parents who may not be quite with it don't end up making thier children as

overweight and unhealthy as they might be.

With children not being able to choose thier parents, or make an informed choice themselves when younger, i'm struggling to see why this idea annoys some people like it does?

It's not telling parents what to buy for thier children or stopping parents from adding more sugar if they want to, it's just making certain foods a little bit healthier, which is reversable at home, so parents are still free to feed thier children lots of

sugar at breakfast time. (:-))



mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
Thin end of the wedge I tell you. You'll be banning Marmite next as it poses a clear and present risk to the health of the nation.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:How do we know it's the thin end of the wedge? Plus nothing is actually being banned or made irreversable at home.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> Thin end of the wedge I tell you. You'll be banning Marmite next as it poses a clear and present risk to the health of the nation.

What risk to health does marmite pose? (that's a rhetorical question and I'll be VERY upset if there is an actual answer to it!!!)

Excessive sugar consumption has been demonstrated through quality research to be a risk to health. So why not do something about it? Like other people have said people will be free to add sugar should they wish, but also people will get used to not needing the quantities of sugar they were previously used to.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:It's only an idea anyway, should Labour get into power. Thinking about it we should probably be more concerned with what's happening now, or is about to happen.
Eric9Points - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to deepsoup)
> [...]
>
> Do people really undrestand what 30% sugar is?
>
> In a regular serving 40g of cereal that's 12g or 2.5 teaspoons. Not a lot really. Until you see how big a serving of 40g is. My kids would probably eat a 120g bowl of breakfast cereal which isn't even half of one of our breakfast bowls. So they're eating 7.5 teaspoons of sugar even before they've left the house.
>
> If you've got kits, try it. Pour out a bowl of cereal then weigh it. You'll be horrified.

I think that there may be some merit in limiting sugar content in children's foods such as breakfast cereals, it would at least help to stop children growing up with bad eating habits, but I'm not quite sure how you'd make a distinction between children's food and adult's food.

As far as controlling what an adult consumes then absolutely not. If you want to cripple yourself, contract diabetes and die of a coronary then that's your choice and nobody should stop you from doing so.
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:

> If you don't like these, shop in Aldi etc, they don't do multipacks or bulk discounts at all.


The point is there is clash of interests. For the supermarkets there's the need to maximize profits anyway possible regardless of the effects on society. For wider society we need to eat a decent healthy diet.

Intervention by the govt is recognition of that clash - an attempt to redress the balance.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: So rather than educate stupid parents (that's what you're saying they are), ban the offending item? Unless you're saying that sugary cereals are the sole cause of obesity then surely we should ban all unhealthy foods that stupid parents might give their children.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> As far as controlling what an adult consumes then absolutely not. If you want to cripple yourself, contract diabetes and die of a coronary then that's your choice and nobody should stop you from doing so.

It is an adults 'choice' to do that, unfortunately there is no 'choice' for the government/NHS to pick up the bill for there obesity related health problems. Can I have a 'choice' of not having to lift anyone with a BMI over 30 please!!!
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Timmd) So rather than educate stupid parents (that's what you're saying they are), ban the offending item? Unless you're saying that sugary cereals are the sole cause of obesity then surely we should ban all unhealthy foods that stupid parents might give their children.

It's the cereals with cheerfull cartoon characters on the packets and in the adverts which are there to make them appeal to children, it's the only reason they're so cheery and colourfull, like Frosties with the cartoon tiger, or the annoying Cocoa Pops adverts with the monkey who used to shout about how they were so chocolaty they even turned the milk brown.

It's pretty obvious which cereals are aimed at children, and nowhere did I post it should be done *instead of* educating parents, or that they're stupid. More it's something extra which could be usefull.
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Well how would it be if half the country was hooked on heroin and when you went down to your local supermarket you see massive ads selling 2 for 1 heroin packs?

If it's all down to personal responsibility then the same logic holds. People can get hooked on junk foods the same way they can on drugs or alcohol.

It's not like this is a small problem. Obesity and other diet related diseases are huge problem.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: We could ban "cheerful" characters on packets then. Or only put cheerful characters on foods you deem acceptable.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: They could put plan packaging on and ban advertising of anything with a high sugar or fat content, thus making them less appealing. Or would that go against the rights of the share holders to make money at the expense of small children.
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
ads.ukclimbing.com
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

From a purely personal perspective I think banning loads of junk food would be a great idea. Imagine going into a supermarket and all the junk food aisles replaced with decent healthy food instead.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean: According to research in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, high doses of niacin (or vitamin B3), one of the main ingredients in Marmite, help boost the body’s defences against staphylococcus bacteria. In tests, concentrated niacin – which produces neutrophils, a white blood cell that fights bacteria – increased our immune system’s ability to kill different strains of the bugs by up to 1,000 times. This could mark a turning point in the battle against antibiotic-resistant superbugs, such as MRSA, the deadly strain that poses a threat in hospitals.

Since I am exposed to MRSA via my job I feel I would be ignorant and neglectful not to continue eating marmite!!!
Eric9Points - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> [...]
>
> It is an adults 'choice' to do that, unfortunately there is no 'choice' for the government/NHS to pick up the bill for there obesity related health problems.

Presumably you don't have an issue for paying for two years of geriatric care while a healthy person dies of old age? I think the (entirely selfish) point about the cost to the NHS is a dubious one.

> Can I have a 'choice' of not having to lift anyone with a BMI over 30 please!!!

Of course you can. You, and fatty, can wait until sufficient people have arrived on the scene to make the lift. If they happen to die while they're waiting then tough, they took responsibility for getting their body into that shape so they should not complain about the adverse consequences.
mkean - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
How do we know it's the thin end of the wedge?

The Labour party are the "thin end of the wedge" party, RIPA was there to stop the fuzzy wuzzy terrorists but got used for spying on people throwing out recyclables. Nice smiling Blair was morphed into Gordon "evil Scottish financial goblin" Brown...

You may stand by when the filthy communists take away our Frosties, but what happens when they take our Malt Loaf? You can munch on Chairman Mao "Extra tasteless bran morsels" but I'll fight for my breakfast cereal! It is another left wing assault on the rights of the middle classes, it'll also hit our world class dental industry. How will my dentist afford this years Rangerover sport if little Timmy fails to need 17 fillings by the age of 10?

Have I read too much into this? ;-)
Eric9Points - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
>
> If it's all down to personal responsibility then the same logic holds. People can get hooked on junk foods the same way they can on drugs or alcohol.

I don't agree. People can change their eating habits, they're not addictions in the same sense as alcohol or heroin addictions.
dale1968 - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp: I know people who are obese and dont eat that sort of rubbish, but are sedentary, and drink a lot and cook there own high calorie food, this is a far more complex problem than legislation can solve
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Legislation may or may not solve it but it could certainly help. What other alternatives are there?
EeeByGum - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:

> Imagine going into a supermarket and all the junk food aisles replaced with decent healthy food instead.

There are already lots of healthy food isles in my supermarket. If you got rid of the junk food, it would only be replaced by junk or landfill of some description.

I don't have a problem with junk food. I quite like it... once in a while. If people want to gorge themselves on it then they have to live with the consequences and I note that one council is considering withdrawing benefits for obese people who don't participate in prescribed exercise as a result of health coming back into council control.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp: Er, education? No, let's not bother with education when we could ban things instead.
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Well sugar addiction is real. It's not exactly the same as alcohol or heroin but it's an addiction nonetheless and an easy one to get and keep. Sugar is present everywhere, in so much of the food we buy.
dale1968 - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp: Education rather than legislation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20914684
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

How do you educate adults? TV ads don't seem to work so put everyone on forced education camps.

The problem is when you go into a supermarket so much of the produce is bad for you. I'm vegetarian and find it pretty hard picking out healthy foods. There are some but it's very limited, often overpriced and not that much of it. If they took out all the stuff with too much sugar and salt personally I'd support it, I'd see it as a positive change. I'd have far more choice. I'm not sure why anyone else is against that.
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: A multi angle approach is what is needed,
some legislation of food, regulation of advertising of certain foods. Education of parents, educating children at school although it probably has a place will not vastly improve things since it is the parents buying/cooking the food. And excercise schemes. Although I'm not sure how you will get participation from the people who need it most in education/excercise schemes.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp: We appear to be back to calling people stupid. I'm a normal eater and find it very easy to pick out healthy foods in the supermarket; here's a tip, if it's loose you're probably ok, if it's in a packet try reading the label you thicko.
deepsoup - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean:
> There is an expectation in society that we don't do certain things that are obviously hazardous, it is accepted that the M1 is an unsuitable football pitch so why do we treat food differently? There has been a huge wealth of easily accessible* health information available for decades and yet we are still getting fatter.

The information is available to those who seek it out, and who're discerning enough to separate it from the *vast* amount of misinformation that's also available. And lets not forget there's a huge advertising and marketing industry spending a *lot* of money on pushing a lot of misinformation. They spend a *lot* of money lobbying too, its not surprising that Labour did bugger all about this while they were in power and have only started calling for it now they're in opposition.

> A large proportion of people who regularly consume an unhealthy quantity of refined sugars do so from soft drinks, but I think banning lemonade would be seen as excessive.

I would agree with you, if anyone were suggesting banning lemonade. Which they're not.
deepsoup - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:

> How do you educate adults? TV ads don't seem to work

TV ads work very well, unfortunately. That's part of the problem, because so many of them are selling shite.
Philip on 07 Jan 2013
I'd welcome rules like this.

It's rare that I buy any prepared/processed food. Breakfast cereal and Tyrells crisps are probably the only exceptions. It would be nice to be able to trust that things you want to be able to take for granted as being healthy are not disproportionate with sugar or fat.

I don't care about the amount of sugar in my one glass of orange squash per day, but if I had a kid drinking 3 or 4 glasses per day and I went to buy some Robinsons and they sold out and I grabbed the own-brand, I'd like to think it doesn't have a ridiculous amount of sugar without checking.

As saturated fats have been replaced in cakes and biscuits, more sugar is used to hide the less pleasant taste from the alternative fat. Biscuits now are much less healthy.
deepsoup - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to deepsoup:
> I would agree with you, if anyone were suggesting banning lemonade. Which they're not.

Having said that, I would definitely support a New York style upper limit on soft drink portion sizes in fast food places and the like.
Obviously if you really want *that* much lemonade, there'd be nothing to stop you buying two half-buckets instead of one whole one.
(Linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0 )

By the way, did everyone posting here see the BBC series "The Men Who Made Us Fat"? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxzv8

Obviously there are plenty here who'll dismiss it as typical BBC lefty nonsense, but it's quite an eye opener. Certainly worth a watch anyway.
The whole thing (three 1hr episodes) seems to be available on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6nGlLUBkOQ
EeeByGum - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:

> The problem is when you go into a supermarket so much of the produce is bad for you. I'm vegetarian and find it pretty hard picking out healthy foods.

You surprise me. Surely all of the veg section, most of the bread section, all of the rice / pasta / pulse section, most of the tinned section, all of the fresh fish / meat section (I appreciate you are a vegie but still) and most of the cold meat section is all healthy?

The only absolute no-no isles I can think of are the ready meal and frozen food section which is a mine field, the cereal section which is about 50/50 healthy and the crisp / biscuit section, but seeing as these tend to be big blocks of a supermarket, they are easily avoided.
DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
Education is great if what you are educating people in is correct.

As has been pointed out already in this thread, fat is a good source of energy. Why ban it?

Sugar is bad, why aren't foods labelled low sugar?

There's a big label on my packet of Jaffa Cakes 1g FAT per cake, there's a very small one that says 6.6g sugar.

Label the stuff properly, ban labels that falsely indicate foods are not 'too bad' for you.
ads.ukclimbing.com
EeeByGum - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Philip:

> I don't care about the amount of sugar in my one glass of orange squash per day, but if I had a kid drinking 3 or 4 glasses per day and I went to buy some Robinsons and they sold out and I grabbed the own-brand, I'd like to think it doesn't have a ridiculous amount of sugar without checking.

Why? You and I probably grew up on squash that was so orange it glowed in the dark and made you feel all giddy after about the 6th glass. Never did us any harm. I feel so sorry for the kids of today (my son included). They will never know what it means to drink "orange" juice, red Smarties or green Opal Fruits. :-(
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Philip)
>
> [...]
>
> Why? You and I probably grew up on squash that was so orange it glowed in the dark and made you feel all giddy after about the 6th glass. Never did us any harm. I feel so sorry for the kids of today (my son included). They will never know what it means to drink "orange" juice, red Smarties or green Opal Fruits. :-(

Because the sugar we ate as kids was a 'treat' not a staple part of the diet, hidden in places people don't think about (ie breakfast cereals, low fat but high sugar items, many ready meals).
Tall Clare - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

I thought that most breakfast cereals had always been pretty sugar-laden? Apparently we consume more cereals (grains with the goodness knocked out) than pretty much any other country, including the USA.

Perhaps we just didn't eat as much overall?
SAF - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to SAF)
>
> I thought that most breakfast cereals had always been pretty sugar-laden? Apparently we consume more cereals (grains with the goodness knocked out) than pretty much any other country, including the USA.
>
> Perhaps we just didn't eat as much overall?

Hmmm, not sure, would be interesting to see like for like comparison on the popular cereals from now and 30 years ago. I'm not sure if there were so many 'frosted' cereals originally. Frosties always seem to have been around, but frosted shreadies are relatively more recent I think.

DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
We eat more sugar because of a flawed statement in the 80s where a scientist liked coronary heart disease to fat. Fat was then seen as a bad guy and the Market flooded with low fat foods which tasted awful unless you filled them with sugar.

You used to have to go to the sweet shop to buy sweets.

Mars hit upon a selling strategy that meant that eating chocolate between meals was really good for you. In a few years we'll laugh at these adverts like we do at the old cigarette adverts.

But hey we're all adults why did they ban tobacco advertising?
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

The world heart federation website seems to suggest that a lot of animal fats in the diet aren't helpfull.
DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> The world heart federation website seems to suggest that a lot of animal fats in the diet aren't helpfull.

Yes. It recommends no more than 10% of your daily calories come from Saturated fats.

For an intake of 2500cals that's about 30g. I don't eat animal fat every day and I'm sure some days I expend around 4,000 cals.

Cutting out Saturated fats completely is a misnomer. They don't make you fat, they give you heart disease. The two are different problems.
hokkyokusei - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968

Wouldn't it be simpler to just bring back rationing?
Douglas Griffin - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

> I thought that most breakfast cereals had always been pretty sugar-laden?

A lot of them are very high in salt too.

The amount of salt in food ought to concern more people than it does, given the proportion of the population with high blood pressure.

I pay quite close attention to the salt content of any pre-prepared food that I eat, 6g per day is supposed to be the healthy limit (though it's really a case of the less the better). Quite often the label only indicates the amount of sodium (to convert to salt you need to multiply by 2.5) and it'll quite often have the salt figure highlighted but then in the small print it'll state 'per serving' rather than per packet - and usually the 'servings' are very small - who eats a 1/2 packet of crisps?! A lot of the time it's hard not to conclude that the manufacturers aren't being deliberately misleading. (I think that makes sense!!)
Douglas Griffin - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

Cheese is full of salt too, especially the blue stuff. :-(
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/29/cheddar-cheese-more-salt-crisps
Mike Stretford - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> We eat more sugar because of a flawed statement in the 80s where a scientist liked coronary heart disease to fat. Fat was then seen as a bad guy and the Market flooded with low fat foods which tasted awful unless you filled them with sugar.
>

So deep fried pizza is ok but have a mars bar for pudding and you're doomed?

owlart - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Philip:
> It's rare that I buy any prepared/processed food.

How much preparation/processing is acceptable though? Unless you buy a cow and a sheaf of wheat, most food you get has gone through some sort of processing/preparation before it hits the supermarket shelf.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>

> Cutting out Saturated fats completely is a misnomer. They don't make you fat, they give you heart disease. The two are different problems.

True.

My dad seems to think having an active lifestyle might be the most important factor, he grew up in quite a poor family and had bread and dripping with sugar sprinkled on it for a treat, and spam and other unhealthy foods, and had to walk or cycle everywhere, and his farming uncles walked or cycled most places, and would eat the 2cm wide bit of fat with thier ham which they often had for lunch or tea, or pork pies and things, but as far as I gather his late relatives died of old age rather than heart disease, which one might expect them to have.

They probably ate a lot of apples and radishes, and the common fruit and veg around in England at the time which people could grow themselves, but i'm sure they exceeded what's thought of as healthy for saturated fats.

We need to stop the selling off of school playing fields so children can get back to being more active, make changes so being active is a more common part of the day again.
Mike Stretford - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to owlart: He's reffering to say, meat you buy from a butchers as opposed to a beef madrass in a box. I had an allotment and once you've washed the mud off most stuff looks like the stuff in the fruit and veg bit of a supermarket.
CurlyStevo - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
"Cutting out Saturated fats completely is a misnomer. They don't make you fat, they give you heart disease. The two are different problems. "

Which source for this information are you using?

I realise it's "common knowledge", just I've started looking in to this area and the idea that saturated fats clog your arteries and raise your cholesterol seems to be based on some very old dubious studies and is certainly not the full story. The book I'm currently reading explains that carbohydrates especially sugar are actually a major cause of this.

Also that polyunsaturated fats (and the associated trans fats and mega trans fats) especially omega 6 or cooking with any lipids high in polyunsaturated fats are often more damaging to health than saturated fats. Humans have evolved for 1000's of years eating animal fats for example.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:That's not to look back with rose tinted glasses, more that being active a lot of the time seems like a very health thing.
owlart - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon: Yes, the meat in the butchers has been prepared/processed to an acceptable level, the madras hasn't. Somewhere between the two we draw a line. Is it maybe that items witha list of ingredients are bad, and those which don't are good? For people to say 'prepared/processed food is bad' is meaningless unless you define what level of preparation/processing you're willing to accept.
CurlyStevo - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
"The amount of salt in food ought to concern more people than it does, given the proportion of the population with high blood pressure."

There again what studies are you basing it on. I've seen studies quoted that have found an inverse correlation between the amount of salt eaten and heart disease. There is a lot of information which seems to be fed to us that simply doesn't seem to be based on solid facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pag...
Mike Stretford - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to owlart: Philp didn't say 'prepared/processed food is bad', he said it's rare that he buys it. If you buy a lot of it and want to be healthy then you have to spend a lot of time reading labels. When you use raw ingredients, you know what goes in.

<flipant mode>

I'd say most prepared meals you can buy are bad as people who can't be arsed cooking something tasty aren't that bothered about what they eat.

</flipant mode>
EeeByGum - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

> Because the sugar we ate as kids was a 'treat' not a staple part of the diet, hidden in places people don't think about (ie breakfast cereals, low fat but high sugar items, many ready meals).

But you are talking about that as if it were something new. If anything most of the manufactured / processed food we have is now very much reduced this and reduced that. You certainly couldn't get reduced sugar baked beans for example.

The area I feel has been completely forgotten about is the take away sector. It isn't hard to buy a couple of thousand calories of lard for less than a fiva from your local takeaway. And there always seems to be a lot of busy takeaways in the poorer parts of town.
ads.ukclimbing.com
owlart - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to owlart) Philp didn't say 'prepared/processed food is bad', he said it's rare that he buys it. If you buy a lot of it and want to be healthy then you have to spend a lot of time reading labels. When you use raw ingredients, you know what goes in.

I know Philip didn't, but the general thrust on these type on food threads on UKC is that "processed/prepared food is bad for you", followed by people claiming that they never/rarely buy any processed/prepared food, when what they mean is that they do buy processed/prepared food, but they've drawn a line somewhere at what sort of processing/preparation they're prepared to accept.

> <flipant mode>
>
> I'd say most prepared meals you can buy are bad as people who can't be arsed cooking something tasty aren't that bothered about what they eat.
>
> </flipant mode>

I don't generally buy prepared meals as a rule, but I can see that eg. the homemade lasagne from my local butchers is a lot easier than making it yourself from scratch, especially when you're only cooking for one, and it does taste just as good, if not better than my own cooking too!
teflonpete - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: Why don't they just do a similar thing to cigarette packaging. Ban advertising, sell sugar and additive laden foods in plain packinging, or one with a picture of an obese person on it, and put an additional tax on it. Fair enough, those measures haven't stopped smoking completely, but along with other measures, they have reduced it considerably.
Mike Stretford - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> I know Philip didn't, but the general thrust on these type on food threads on UKC is that "processed/prepared food is bad for you", followed by people claiming that they never/rarely buy any processed/prepared food, when what they mean is that they do buy processed/prepared food, but they've drawn a line somewhere at what sort of processing/preparation they're prepared to accept.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't generally buy prepared meals as a rule, but I can see that eg. the homemade lasagne from my local butchers is a lot easier than making it yourself from scratch, especially when you're only cooking for one, and it does taste just as good, if not better than my own cooking too!

Owlart, you're being silly. Most people could easily distinguish between a homemade lasagne from your butchers, a leek thats had the top cut off and been washed, and a Beef Madras in a box from a supermarket.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to teflonpete: Because these things aren't bad for you. If stupid people have them all the time, to the exclusion of other foods, they might get fat, but eating a ready meal once in a while or a bowl of sugarpopsagogo as a treat won't do you any harm.
owlart - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to owlart)
> [...]
>
> Owlart, you're being silly. Most people could easily distinguish between a homemade lasagne from your butchers, a leek thats had the top cut off and been washed, and a Beef Madras in a box from a supermarket.

I'm trying to point out how pointless the opt-repeated mantra of "prepared/processed food is bad" is, since both the homemade lasagne and the madras-in-a-box are both prepared/processed food. What you really mean is that people should look at the ingredients and decide for themselves if is is healthy or not, rather than deciding that it's unhealthy just because it's been prepared/processed. Some prepared/processed foods are good, some are bad.
owlart - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: What if clever people have them all the time, does it not make them fat?
Mike Stretford - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to owlart: Oh I get it, the 7th of January is Owlart's strictly literal day!
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to stp) And supermarkets sell sugar in 1kg bags!

Never mind sugar and fat limits: over in the land of the free they are selling gallon jugs of Tabasco sauce.

http://countrystore.tabasco.com/TABASCO-Gallon-Jugs/productinfo/00052/

Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) What if clever people have them all the time, does it not make them fat?

Do you think it would be sensible to eat them all the time? Or do you think it would be stupid?
stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If stupid people have them all the time

I don't think it's just stupid people. 65% of men are overweight in this country.

DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to owlart:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> I'm trying to point out how pointless the opt-repeated mantra of "prepared/processed food is bad" is, since both the homemade lasagne and the madras-in-a-box are both prepared/processed food. What you really mean is that people should look at the ingredients and decide for themselves if is is healthy or not, rather than deciding that it's unhealthy just because it's been prepared/processed. Some prepared/processed foods are good, some are bad.

It's not just a matter of being clever or stupid and reading the ingredients. It's about being smart and beating the food manufacturers at their spin.

As was said earlier per portion, per 40g serving, or per 100g are not a lot of use unless you weigh your food or they package the food appropriately.

Then how many people, clever or stupid, realise that 600calories would take most people over an hour to run off. If you run or climb you'll be more aware.

Can we replace clever and stupid with enlightened and ignorant please.

Eric9Points - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> Well sugar addiction is real. It's not exactly the same as alcohol or heroin but it's an addiction nonetheless and an easy one to get and keep. Sugar is present everywhere, in so much of the food we buy.

Not as far as I can see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Some evidence that in certain circumstances it could become addictive but no proof.

Someone else suggested that we're eating more nowadays. Certainly true in the Land of the Fat: http://www.livestrong.com/article/445675-the-average-daily-calories-consumed-by-adults-in-the-united...

No doubt further Googling would throw up more graphs of average calorie intake over the past X years for different countries.

stp - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

So you don't think there's a link between the types of food we eat and obesity then?
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to owlart)
> [...]

> Then how many people, clever or stupid, realise that 600calories would take most people over an hour to run off. If you run or climb you'll be more aware.

That doesn't always follow, i've climbed on and off since my early teens and only stated weighing my food when I became diabetic, though just for bread and potatos at first, and working out what the measurements mean on the back.

> Can we replace clever and stupid with enlightened and ignorant please.

I agree.
Eric9Points - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> So you don't think there's a link between the types of food we eat and obesity then?

I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
stroppygob - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to stp) Er, education? No, let's not bother with education when we could ban things instead.

Nailed it. I have no problem with the Govt spending other people's hard earned on educating the hoi polloi on nutrition and health matters. Banning foods, or mandating food composition, is a nanny state step to far though
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Nailed it. I have no problem with the Govt spending other people's hard earned on educating the hoi polloi on nutrition and health matters. Banning foods, or mandating food composition, is a nanny state step to far though

It's not stopping people from eating childrens' cereals which are just as sugary as they were before any changes were made, all people need to do is add more sugar at home.

To me it seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to talk about nanny states to be honest. Nothing is banned, just changed slightly.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:So it's the principle, rather than the fact that it's children's cereals, and some parents won't think about it?
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: If you don't think about what cereal you feed your kids how likely do you think it is that you pay much attention to their diet for their other meals? What other foods shall we ban? Can we buy them if we promise that they're for adults?
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

NOTHING IS BEING BANNED!!

Elastic band, marching band, psuedo medical copper band, watch out for the band band, or any other kind of banned.

It's just an idea about changing something a little bit, but not banned!

Good grief!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: If you have a legal limit on the amount of sugar a cereal can contain then you've banned cereals with more sugar than the limit.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:Yes, you have done, you're right. Hey ho. (:-))
DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Timmd) If you have a legal limit on the amount of sugar a cereal can contain then you've banned cereals with more sugar than the limit.

The problem as I posted before is that the cereals are misleading. In a portion (40g) of Honey Nut Cheerios there is 13g of sugar. That's nearly 3 teaspoons. Couple that with the fact that kids won't be eating 40g, the minimum is going to be 120g, you can see where people can be easily misled.

We know coke is high in sugar, but how high? 35g of sugar in a 330ml can? That's 7 teaspoons!

It's hidden and despite labelling, it's still hidden and requires a lot of work to calculate how much it's hidden.

Why?
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd: Will you stop doing the post/delete dance? Either think about it then post, or post and accept what you've put.
Timmd on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Out of interest, would you be against alcohol prices going up a lot, to mirror those in Norway?

I'm just interested in where people draw the line for different things.

I don't personally have a problem with sugar limits, because the actual cereals themselves wouldn't be banned, it's just the amount of sugar in them would be limited.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: It's not hidden, it's there, in plain sight, on the label. If you want bigger labels or a better explanation go for it.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> Out of interest, would you be against alcohol prices going up a lot, to mirror those in Norway?
>
> I'm just interested in where people draw the line for different things.
>

Yes. What about you?
DancingOnRock - on 07 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock) It's not hidden, it's there, in plain sight, on the label. If you want bigger labels or a better explanation go for it.

But how do you label them. Most guidelines are 2000/2500cals for adult woman/man. How many cals for a 5year old. What's the daily recommended intake of sugar for a 10year old?

What's missing and has been missing for years is educating adults in how to bring up children. It used to be passed down from grand parents. Now people try to learn it from books, every book will tell you something different. However, god forbid the nanny state should get involved and tell people how to bring up their children.

The country has gone mad.
stroppygob - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> To me it seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to talk about nanny states to be honest. Nothing is banned, just changed slightly.

If sugar and fat levels are mandated in a product, the Govt assumes control of the manufacture of teh product. It's a step too far.

If I want my kids to have an occasional treat or sample of that sort of crap, (I think they'd hurl at the sugariness of it,) then why should I not be allowed to buy it because Joe Fatbelly hasn't the wit nor care to teach his kids how to eat healthily?

The New NickB - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:
> (In reply to Tall Clare)
> [...]
>
> Hmmm, not sure, would be interesting to see like for like comparison on the popular cereals from now and 30 years ago. I'm not sure if there were so many 'frosted' cereals originally. Frosties always seem to have been around, but frosted shreadies are relatively more recent I think.

The range of cereals is greater now, but the proportion of ones packed with sugar was just as high, frosties, sugar puffs, ricicles, coco pops, even start which was advertised by Steve Cram as being really healthy.
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock) It's not hidden, it's there, in plain sight, on the label. If you want bigger labels or a better explanation go for it.

One of the run down towns near were I live has illiteracy rates of around 47% and poor numeracy of something like 75%... It has also been in the local papers numerous times about how high (much higher than the national average) the obesity rate in the same area is, but I can't seem to find those statistics online...sorry!!

Since being able to make a decision on what is healthy and what is not from a cereal/ready meal requires the ability to read and the ability to intepret numerical data, then education in healthy nutrition simple will not work for these families.

Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

So let's educate them (so they can read), not regulate the rest of us.

If they decline that, then tough.

Neil
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF: Read the thread, or at least yesterday's post at 13:29.
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: Hence why it it needs to be a multi angle approach, education alone will only help sort the problem amongst one section of the population.

Given that a lot of people on here declare that they don't eat the processed foods that appear to be a massive problem, then why the big deal in getting rid of them.

And the big food companies arn't going to let themselves just go bust if new rules came in, they'd adapt to the changes, with new recipes. They need to sell to make profits after all.

You say that you don't like being preached to/nanny state etc. yet we, as a nation, accepted the 'low fat'(high sugar) revolution blindly. Now that they try to correct for previous good intentioned/mis-informed decisions in the past it's a problem.
DancingOnRock - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I still think you're getting confused with banning and regulation. The government regulate all parts of the food chain already. Right down to the pesticides we use on the crops and vaccinations we give to our animals. No one is complaining that we don't use lead seals or tin cans anymore because we recognise that it's bad for our health. Why not regulate sugar as well. It's proved in large quantities to be bad for us.

<extreme internet example to prove a point>
Large quantites of pesticides are bad for us too, we could just let the farmers get on with it and put a label on the food saying so many mg of pesticide per serving and then it's up to us to find out what level is dangerous and eat less of the foods that contain it. All that would happen is that it would eventually be in everythinig and you'd have little choice but to eat it.
Eric9Points - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Sugar isn't a poison.

I really don't see your point.
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: Non-insulin dependent diabetes is increasingly being linked to long term high sugar exposure.

NIDDM causes increased risk of heart disease, peripheral neuropathy (frequently resulting in amputaions of toes through to whole legs), kidney failure, premature skin aging, blindness through diabetic retinopathy, and much more...

Sounds failure poisnonous to me!!!!
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: Sugar is a food, not a poison. Lead seals aren't food. If you eat enough of any food it will harm you.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF: If people prove they can read the labels and understand that some foods contain a lot of sugar, fat, salt etc. will you make "unhealthy" foods available to them? If not, where do you draw the line? Chocolates? Sweets? Biscuits? Pork pies? Pate?
DancingOnRock - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock) Sugar is a food, not a poison. Lead seals aren't food. If you eat enough of any food it will harm you.

But it now appears that there is a recommended level that is good for you and an unspecified level that over a long time is extremely bad for you.

Sugar is not a food, it is a highly refined additive that doesn't exist in nature in the form we are used to.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: Of course sugar is a food, don't be so silly.
The New NickB - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> Sugar is not a food, it is a highly refined additive that doesn't exist in nature in the form we are used to.

Remember those spaghetti trees!
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock) Sugar is a food, not a poison. Lead seals aren't food. If you eat enough of any food it will harm you.

In reply to Sir Chasm: In evolutionary terms our bodies are not design to deal with such large quantities of sugar as have become avaliable in the last few centuries, and on a massive, dangerous level in the last few decades...

Some researchers/science historian types believe that the amount of refined sugar some people eat in a day equates to what hunter-gathers may have eaten in a year or longer, where the only access to sugar was naturally occuring sugars in fruit and honey, which was often only avaliable seasonally.

Such large quantities of refined sugar are a modern phenomena which are bodies have not had the time to adapt to.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF: How many pork pies did hunter gatherers eat?
Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

dhmo.org?

Neil
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to The New NickB: Apparently spaghetti isn't a food either.
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to SAF) How many pork pies did hunter gatherers eat?

Not many, but I imagine they didn't waste the delicious fatty layer surrounding the wooly mammoth they had just killed for supper!!!!
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SAF)
>
> dhmo.org?
>
> Neil

Will look for something later, but I'm supposed to be writing an assignment at the moment...unfortunatly it's not on sugar!!!!
Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

For anyone who doesn't bother/have time to look, dhmo.org looks at the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, a dangerous chemical which should be banned...

...actually, it's water.

The reason I posted it was to highlight that calling sugar a poison is silly. Water can kill you, but without it you can't survive. Too much sugar is probably similar...

Neil
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams: Sorry thoug you were after me giving a web link, you didn't make it very clear...what your message was or give a full link.

Water is a natural thing, refined sugar is not, no one is suggesting redugulating the sugar content of milk, or stopping you buying too uch fruit or honey. It's refined sugars that are the problem, and they are far from naturally ocuuring!!!!
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:
> It's refined sugars that are the problem

No it isn't, the quantity consumed may be a problem and regulating one source (why only that source, you fail to address) won't solve that - google for the number of kids who go to school with no breakfast, perhaps a bowl of frosties would be better.

Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

They may be a problem, but calling them a poison as someone did upthread is plain silly.

They needn't be banned, people just need to exercise restraint in their consumption, as with any food.

Neil
deepsoup - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (why only that source, you fail to address)

Dur. Because you can, obviously.

You can't ban sugar, or cake, or lard or cheese, they all have their place and freedom of choice blah blah blah. Hence why, just in case there's still anyone who has got it straight in there head yet - there is no plan to ban cheese! ;o)

You can however limit the amount of sugar that's included as an ingredient in certain kinds of processed and pre-prepared foods on order to greatly benefit some people (and those of us who end up paying for their health care) without having any significant impact on everyone else.
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SAF)

> They needn't be banned, people just need to exercise restraint in their consumption, as with any food.
>
Problem is that isn't happening, and there is an obesity epidemic as a result, how do you intend to reverse the trend significantly enough to make a difference to the health of the nation/ future financial viability of the NHS.

Education and trust in the population to make the right decisions on it's own is not proving to be enough...so what next if it's not regulation, or reduced benefits for not excercising...what is your solution?

Year on year we are encountering more and heavier bariatric patients...it can't be allowed to continue!!!
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to deepsoup: And what about sweets, chocolates, pork pies, pate, biscuits, black pudding, cakes etc. etc? Why are you so anti education?
Tall Clare - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Banning pork pies? Heresy!

:-)
Tall Clare - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

Did anyone see Embarrassing Fat Bodies yesterday? I rarely watch TV but when I do it seems to be compulsive viewing. I felt for the poor chap who'd lost something like 27 kg through eating better, getting out on his bike etc, but whose body was a wobbly mass of skin because it's stretched beyond the point of elasticity. I wonder whether this sort of thing actually *discourages* people from losing weight?
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare: It's for your own good, they're not on the SAF approved menu, Stanforths will have to make lentil pies.
Tall Clare - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

Where it says 27kg - I should have said 27 stone. D'oh.
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to deepsoup) Why are you so anti education?

Nobody is anti education, the problem is healthy eating education has been around for some time now, yet during this same time period obesity has risen at a scary rate...so the education is clearly not having the desired effect. Which means someone needs to come up with some other ideas.

If you are so strongly opposed to regulation of processed foods then stop arguing for something that is ineffective and think of another solution!!!
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF: And if you want an example of education not working, is that the number of obese junior grade doctors rotating round the hospitals has visibly increased in the last decade...I'd say that they are fairly intelligent and pretty clued up, yet they are getting fatter too!!!
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF: Again, read the thread, I gave my solution higher up.
It's not limited to healthy eating education, you pointed out that illiteracy is rife, do you think education should be used to combat illiteracy or should we ban books?
Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

I would not be opposed to taxation covering direct cost to the NHS. Then let people get on with eating themselves to death if they so wish.

Neil
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams: Which is one solution to raise money, but it is still individual staff members who are expected to manually handle these patients at increaing risk to our own health.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF: So refuse to lift the obese without sufficient staff or equipment, because that will happen a damn sight quicker than you're going to slim down the population.
john arran - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

We combat illiteracy (in part at least) by legal control. Despite it being contrary to people's freedom of choice we insist that they school their kids and we have legal sanctions if they choose do do otherwise. Not many people seem to have a problem with that.

In the US the NRA is using similar civil liberty arguments to permit people to exercise their freedom of choice in keeping assault weapons; not many here would object to this kind of civil liberty being legally restricted.

It's actually not very different from legally restricting the ability of people to make terrible diet decisions for their children. The proposals don't even go that far - they just make it more difficult to make such poor decisions inadvertently or without putting in a bit of effort to make healthy-looking food quite that unhealthy.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran: Yes, we address illiteracy through education, we don't restrict the length of words in books.
Your nra point? Pfft.
john arran - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to john arran) Yes, we address illiteracy through education, we don't restrict the length of words in books.
Pfft.

> Your nra point? Pfft.
Nice, well-reasoned response.
Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

Then you need to change the system (some sort of hoist to avoid manual lifting, or more staff), and the cost of that is part of the cost I mentioned.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to john arran:

With kids I'm less than convinced it's what they're eating. It's that current generations of kids are left at home playing with games consoles etc, and are not playing physical games outside as they used to - and part of that is that their parents often aren't letting them because they're too protective.

(I would expect this type of parent to be less common on UKC, but they are plenty common in society in general).

Neil
SAF - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to SAF)
>
> Then you need to change the system (some sort of hoist to avoid manual lifting, or more staff), and the cost of that is part of the cost I mentioned.
>
> Neil

Doesn't work well in a 5foot x 7foot bathroom there are only so many people who will fit in, we already have a lifting cushion but someone still has to manually get the patient on it. Narrow, steep stairs in terraced houses don't work with any of out manual handling equipment, other than a carry chair. It is fine once they are on a bariatric ambulance (if one is avalible) but before that it is someone elses backs that pay the price. If you can design a device for all fat related lifting incidence you would be worth millions!!!
cat88 - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to dale1968: Had breakfast at a hotel over the weekend and the overweight woman next to me was eating 5 slices of cheese on toast, a plate of fried potatoes and a banana for breakfast
Bimble on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
> [...]
>
> I think you might be merging politics and 'certain kinds of person' there?
>
> You get organic liking lentil eaters who are anarchists and want to overthrow the state just as much as you get those who think Nanny knows best.

I class myself as anarchist, and I love a good meat pie; sod the lentils & soy-bean eating splitters :p

The amount of people who can't actually cook nowadays may well contribute towards the amount of chuffers; I remember reading a couple of months ago that quite a lot of people now count heating up a tin of beans as 'cooking from scratch'.
That and the fact that cheap food tends to be full of nasties, and as not many folks have much money to spare nowadays, the cheaper option will be what people go for when they are looking to feed their families.

More education overall is needed to show people that eating healthily doesn't need to be expensive, and that cooking simple meals from scratch is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying processed junk from Iceland or Farmfoods etc.
That, and how to use leftovers to make new meals instead of chucking it away, which is a horrific thing to do.
Timmd on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to deepsoup) And what about sweets, chocolates, pork pies, pate, biscuits, black pudding, cakes etc. etc? Why are you so anti education?

Why do you think he is? You thought I was calling some parents stupid when I wasn't doing.

Stop putting words in peoples' mouths! (:-))
Timmd on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> Yes. What about you?

Personally, I see society eating and drinking it's way towards ill health and an early death, with the NHS and doctors doing thier best to deal with the consequences, and think that something urgently needs to be done.

If people can't/won't change how they eat and drink, I think higher prices of alcohol and more food regulation might be needed.

I'd rather have education being tried as the way of changing things first, but if across the whole population it lead to less suffering or more happiness, I think i'd be okay with the regulation of what goes into some foods.

I hardly drink, so changes in the price of alcohol don't affect my lifestyle.

Timmd on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> If sugar and fat levels are mandated in a product, the Govt assumes control of the manufacture of teh product. It's a step too far.
>
> If I want my kids to have an occasional treat or sample of that sort of crap, (I think they'd hurl at the sugariness of it,) then why should I not be allowed to buy it because Joe Fatbelly hasn't the wit nor care to teach his kids how to eat healthily?

I guess one reason could be because it'd benefit the kids of Joe Fatbelly where they're not in a position to choose like adults do?

It's not as as if it wouldn't be possible to add more sugar to cereals, or make something sickly sweet, so personally I don't see it as a big loss of personal freedom, but we all have different points of view, which is fair enough.
hokkyokusei - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> I class myself as anarchist,

Me too, though that's irrelevant.

> That and the fact that cheap food tends to be full of nasties, and as not many folks have much money to spare nowadays, the cheaper option will be what people go for when they are looking to feed their families.

This is bullshit though. I recently spent a month living on basically the cheapest (£31 for 31 days) food I could find. It wasn't unhealthy.

I had bread, milk, oranges, apples, rice, pasta, beans, carrots, onions, lentils, flour, margarine, sugar, raisins, peanuts, sweetcorn, spices, stock cubes, tea, pasata, marmalade, potatoes, cornflakes, vegetable oil, and I forget what else. It wasn't the most interesting culinary month I've ever had, but neither was it the most unhealthy, and it certainly wasn't the most expensive. ~2600 calories/day so I lost weight, but it that's because I was starting from being a lardy bastard. The key to all of this is education, not prohibition!

hokkyokusei - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:

I accidentally cut this from my previous reply ...

> The amount of people who can't actually cook nowadays may well contribute towards the amount of chuffers; I remember reading a couple of months ago that quite a lot of people now count heating up a tin of beans as 'cooking from scratch'.

YES! Education is a requirement for this solution (it's not nailed-on because some people will always ignore good advice but ...) though I admit that it would be a long game. Teaching 10 to 16 year olds how to cook NOW won't solve things over night, but the best time to start is today.
hokkyokusei - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to hokkyokusei:

> This is bullshit though. I recently spent a month living on basically the cheapest (£31 for 31 days) food I could find. It wasn't unhealthy.

Actually, I take this back. It wasn't the cheapest food I could find. It was the cheapest food I could find at TESCO.
Simon4 - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

> Personally, I see society eating and drinking it's way towards ill health and an early death, with the NHS and doctors doing thier best to deal with the consequences, and think that something urgently needs to be done.

But that is not the case, nor is there an "obesity epidemic" - you can't catch being fat from someone else, it is a complete myth.

Average life-expectancy has been increasing steadily for decades, it is higher than it has ever been. Far from deaths due to gluttony being early, they are in an economic sense far too late. This dramatic increase in life-expectancy produces considerable demographic challenges, not least the fact that the proportion of working to non-working life, which has become unsustainable. Pensions systems, which were originally intended to sustain people for 5-10 years after they retire now have to try to somehow provide for them for 30-40 years, during which they become progressively more frail due to the inescapable effects of old age and decreptitude, requiring a much longer period of care than ever before. Despite these, however, many pensioners can still do things like climb, play tennis, ski to a level that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago.

We do not have an ever more unhealthy population dieing prematurely (despite the best efforts of the NHS to kill those unfortunate enough to fall into their clutches), rather we have a population of healthy hypocondriacs, being lectured to and preached at by the modern-day equivalent of hellfire preachers - who have a strong wiff of authoritarianism and control-freakery about them. There is no justification for this authoritarianism other than that it meets some deep psychological need in those who seek to apply it to their unfortunate fellow citizens.
ads.ukclimbing.com
DancingOnRock - on 08 Jan 2013
In reply to Simon4:In reply to Simon4: Are you sure about that? The average man is expected to die at 85 as opposed to 75. That's 20 years as apposed to 10, Not 30-40.

In any case people living to 100 aren't a burden for 35 years, they're usually perfectly healthy up to the last 5-10 years, so they're no more of a burden dying at 100 than they are dying at 70.

Obesity levels are rising and if something isn't done to stop them they will probably continue to rise.

There are a huge number of reasons why people are obese, many of them can be addressed by education, but while we rely on people not succumbing to greed (either food companies greed for money, or individuals greed for sugar) someone needs to step in.
Ciro - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Simon4:

> Average life-expectancy has been increasing steadily for decades, it is higher than it has ever been. Far from deaths due to gluttony being early, they are in an economic sense far too late. This dramatic increase in life-expectancy produces considerable demographic challenges, not least the fact that the proportion of working to non-working life, which has become unsustainable. Pensions systems, which were originally intended to sustain people for 5-10 years after they retire now have to try to somehow provide for them for 30-40 years, during which they become progressively more frail due to the inescapable effects of old age and decreptitude, requiring a much longer period of care than ever before. Despite these, however, many pensioners can still do things like climb, play tennis, ski to a level that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago.

You think we should avoid public health measures so that people die earlier, reducing the cost to those of working age of running the country?

stroppygob - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
>
> Obesity levels are rising and if something isn't done to stop them they will probably continue to rise.
>
> There are a huge number of reasons why people are obese, many of them can be addressed by education, but while we rely on people not succumbing to greed (either food companies greed for money, or individuals greed for sugar) someone needs to step in.

There is one reason why people are obese; calories in > calories out.

Educate and offer information, give choice and opportunity to learn and improve.

Stepping into the nations breakfasts, and giving us all a Nanny who regulates our diet, just because there are fat and feckless wasters amongst us, is stepping too far.
Ciro - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:

> Stepping into the nations breakfasts, and giving us all a Nanny who regulates our diet, just because there are fat and feckless wasters amongst us, is stepping too far.

It's not about stepping into the nations breakfasts - nobody is saying you shouldn't be allowed to eat what you want - it's about stopping large multinationals from making hefty profits out of marketing extremely unhealthy food at children, whilst disguising it as healthy.
stroppygob - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Ciro: Oh god.....

Which part of ; "But Mr Burnham said the "time has come for new thinking" and asked whether a legal limit on the amount of fat, sugar and salt, especially for foods aimed at children, should be established.

"I'm not talking about banning anything... my argument is, shouldn't we just bring down those fat, salt sugar levels to make them more healthier than they are?" he added.


Do you find difficult to understand?


Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Timmd:

"if across the whole population it lead to less suffering or more happiness"

Do you genuinely think it will? Or would people rather be left alone to make their own decisions, even if nominally the wrong ones?

Do you actually think things like prohibition work?

Most people who drink alcohol, for instance, do so because they wish to. Same with eating choccy bars. I certainly do both because I find them pleasurable - on balance better than not doing.

The one thing I will concede to is if a specific category of item can be proven to have a quantifiable financial cost to the NHS, policing etc, that were that item to become unavailable would certainly not be incurred, I accept the idea of it being taxed to cover that financial cost, just as it would become part of someone's insurance premium were those services provided commercially.

I know it would be good for my health not to drink alcohol and to eat an extremely healthy diet, but I choose not to. That choice is none of anyone else's business, other than the financial implication mentioned.

This is, to be fair, based on a political "ideal" of mine, which is that everyone should be free to do what they like provided it doesn't have an adverse impact on someone else (an adverse impact on themselves only being none of anyone else's business). That is in a purest sense impossible to achieve (almost any action will have some impact on someone else, and you don't necessarily have the chance to ask them if it's adverse to them or not) but it's an ideal.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

"Until you see how big a serving of 40g is"

Those stupid variety packs are 25g, aren't they? I would tend to have two or three, depending on what they are (or when staying in a hotel, one, but also a yogurt and some other bits).

I agree those "servings" on most products are silly, though. Similarly, who buys a 500ml bottle of Coke and drinks half of it, per the "servings" listed? Perhaps there does need to be a rule that for obviously single-serving products like that, the serving is the pack size.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

"Can I have a 'choice' of not having to lift anyone with a BMI over 30 please!!!"

That's between you and your employer and is a H&S matter as to how many people, and what mechanical assistance, is provided to perform such a lift.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to SAF:

"Doesn't work well in a 5foot x 7foot bathroom there are only so many people who will fit in, we already have a lifting cushion but someone still has to manually get the patient on it. Narrow, steep stairs in terraced houses don't work with any of out manual handling equipment, other than a carry chair. It is fine once they are on a bariatric ambulance (if one is avalible) but before that it is someone elses backs that pay the price. If you can design a device for all fat related lifting incidence you would be worth millions!!!"

Then the service as a whole needs to be redesigned.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to cat88:

A lot of people stuff themselves at hotel buffet breakfasts. But as most people don't stay in hotels all the time, I don't see that that is in itself a massive problem.

Neil
dissonance - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Simon4)In reply to Simon4: Are you sure about that? The average man is expected to die at 85 as opposed to 75. That's 20 years as apposed to 10, Not 30-40.

there are also some academics who are arguing that possibly we may have reached a peak in life expectancy. With obesity and other related issues that expectancy may start to drop again and has done so for some subclasses, for example, in the USA.
SAF - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Simon4:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> [...]
>
> But that is not the case, nor is there an "obesity epidemic" - you can't catch being fat from someone else, it is a complete myth.
>
Look up the meaning of the word epidemic it is not a term specifically associated with infectious disease.
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> Most people who drink alcohol, for instance, do so because they wish to. Same with eating choccy bars. I certainly do both because I find them pleasurable - on balance better than not doing.
>

>...

> I know it would be good for my health not to drink alcohol and to eat an extremely healthy diet, but I choose not to. That choice is none of anyone else's business, other than the financial implication mentioned.
>
> This is, to be fair, based on a political "ideal" of mine, which is that everyone should be free to do what they like provided it doesn't have an adverse impact on someone else (an adverse impact on themselves only being none of anyone else's business). That is in a purest sense impossible to achieve (almost any action will have some impact on someone else, and you don't necessarily have the chance to ask them if it's adverse to them or not) but it's an ideal.
>
> Neil

The problem is that you 'think' you're free to make that choice. As has been said above there are some very clever psychological techniques employed in marketing.

Cadbury's know that if they sell you a 500g bar of chockolate the chances are you will munch your way through it while watching TV. The big bars are then put on the shelves at eye level in the supermarkets to maximize the supermarkets profits. 2 for 1 deal encourage you to buy more than you need, then when home you'll consume it because it's there. There are probably loads more.

I'm not saying that these hurdles can't be overcome by will power, but simply, if you've got 8 cans of beer in the fridge you'll have enough for a beer every night and 2 on Friday. If you've got 4 then you run out on Tuesday and then have to make a decision whether to buy more.

Adverts on TV apparently don't affect us. That's because we all know that if we see an advert for chocolate, we don't get up and go shopping for more chocolate. However, if we have some in the house, not even neccesarily the brand being advertised, we are more likely to be reminded that it's there and walk into the kitchen and get some, or a biscuit or whatever.
Sir Chasm - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: Are you saying tv adverts affect us or don't affect us? You're a bit unclear.
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: In the context of Neil's "I exercise my choice" statement. Most people believe that adverts don't affect them. Advertisers spend millions, they do.

France has banned adverts of those type of foods from children's viewing.

Personally I don't think anyone should be able to chose to buy a 500g/1kg bar of chocolate. If they really need that much then let them buy 6x90g or 12x90g bars. Picking up several bars requires a differnt thought process to picking up one bar. It may not seem obvious but it does.
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Thus making you as bad as the advertisers in controlling behaviour.

Neil
Sir Chasm - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: Is 90g the size limit you would personally place on a bar of chocolate? If it is how do you arrive at that figure? If it isn't, how big would you allow bars of chocolate to be? And how many biscuits would you allow in a packet?
Ciro - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Ciro) Oh god.....
>
> Which part of ; "But Mr Burnham said the "time has come for new thinking" and asked whether a legal limit on the amount of fat, sugar and salt, especially for foods aimed at children, should be established.
>
> "I'm not talking about banning anything... my argument is, shouldn't we just bring down those fat, salt sugar levels to make them more healthier than they are?" he added.
>
> Do you find difficult to understand?

You can't seriously read that as "we're going to make it illegal for you to put excessive amounts of fat, salt and sugar in what you eat at home"?

I read it as "we're going to make it illegal for companies to put excessive amounts of salt, sugar and fat in processed food products to be sold to the public".

To be fair, I used to take a fairly similar position to yours - I'm fit, healhy and not overweight, why should I be prevented from buying the occassional bit of junk just because someone else can't control their own diet properly?

These days I've come round to the idea that we have a collective responsibility to look after each other in the face of corporate greed though. These people are making profits out of pushing an unhealthy lifestyle on us, and I don't think we should allow it.

For a while now I've felt that if it was up to me, I'd ban ciggarette sales, but allow you to grow your own tobacco (at home, or in a collective as they've done with cannabis in spain), so we'd remove the profits and retain the personal freedom to choose, and I'm starting to come to the same conclusion about unhealthy food.
CurlyStevo - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Ciro:
"People on low-salt diets saw their blood pressure drop. But Taylor's team found no statistically significant difference in the subjects' rates of heart disease compared with rates in people who didn't reduce their salt intake. Furthermore, a low-salt diet was not linked to reduced death rates in people with normal blood pressure or high blood pressure. "In one trial in heart-failure patients, we rather worryingly found that reductions in salt increased risk of death," Taylor adds."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=review-adds-salt-to-a-familiar
CurlyStevo - on 09 Jan 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt

Anyway I'm not arguing a case here I'm just adding points to the discussion, are we sure that reducing fat and salt is healthy?

For fat reduction does that not imply for most people more carbs? There seems to be growing evidence that eating more carbs is causing multiple health issues and that the evidence against fats (taken as a whole rather than sub categorising) isn't as convincing as we once thought!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ciro - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to CurlyStevo:

For sure we need to keep re-evaluting the evidence and updating the rules as required, so long as we don't use that as an excuse for not acting.
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Ciro:

"I read it as "we're going to make it illegal for companies to put excessive amounts of salt, sugar and fat in processed food products to be sold to the public"."

Who says excessive? Would you, for instance, ban full-sugar Coke? What if I would prefer that to aspartame?

"For a while now I've felt that if it was up to me, I'd ban ciggarette sales"

Don't think I would, indeed I'm more pro-legalisation-and-taxation, TBH. Smoking is a choice (I choose not to), just as drinking alcohol/full-sugar Coke/eating choccy bars (I choose to do these ones). Giving up can be difficult, so maybe there's an argument to tax to fund giving-up aids, but you might well find that a lot of people like smoking, don't wish to give up, and don't care whether that takes a few years off their life or not.

The bigger issue with smoking, though, is the effect on others who end up smoking passively, particularly the children of smokers. Eating choccy bars and drinking fat Coke doesn't do anything to anyone else, indeed it gives some people employment to produce it.

Neil
Ramblin dave - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) In the context of Neil's "I exercise my choice" statement. Most people believe that adverts don't affect them. Advertisers spend millions, they do.
>
> France has banned adverts of those type of foods from children's viewing.

I think this seems like a sensible idea. It doesn't impinge on anyone's freedom to eat what they like, but hopefully makes it easier for parents to bring up their kids eating a reasonably balanced diet rather getting nagged for sugar puffs every time they go shopping. It's not going to change the world overnight but I think it'd make a difference.
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yeah, I can see the sense in that just as I can see the sense in reducing or banning cigarette advertising as has been done.

To an extent, advertising targetted at children is probably something they need protecting from, as a child hasn't had the chance to develop as much of a cynicism filter as adults have, as it were, so it will likely have much more of an effect.

Though I can see the increasing move towards TV-on-demand reducing this to a fair extent. I'm happy to pay a small sum for things to avoid them being peppered with adverts - iPad and Android apps being a very good example. I would certainly be happy to pay a quid or so for a childrens' TV programme (or a suitable subscription for an entire channel, if being left on in the background) to avoid it being peppered with adverts for choccy bars and beefburger "restaurants". Though perhaps less so for "grown-up" TV because it provides a time to have a slash and make a coffee.

Neil
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock) Is 90g the size limit you would personally place on a bar of chocolate? If it is how do you arrive at that figure? If it isn't, how big would you allow bars of chocolate to be? And how many biscuits would you allow in a packet?

No I would probably limit it to 40g.Just took 90g as it is now the smallest you can buy for some reason. @500cals! 4 of them is a Woman's daily intake. Those 500g bars contain 2600 cals.
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> Thus making you as bad as the advertisers in controlling behaviour.
>
> Neil

Everything you do is being controlled or influenced by someone in some way.
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

So don't eat it in one go.

Neil
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Influenced, yes, controlled, not necessarily.

Neil
mkean - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
No I would probably limit it to 40g.Just took 90g as it is now the smallest you can buy for some reason. @500cals! 4 of them is a Woman's daily intake. Those 500g bars contain 2600 cals.

You do realise that a bar of chocolate won't suddenly explode or turn into a vicious alien parasite if you leave it half eaten for a day or two don't you: Do you eat everything you buy in one sitting? I saw a ten kilo bag of rice recently and if you try to eat that in one go you'll be royally fecked.

;-)

Sir Chasm - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> No I would probably limit it to 40g.Just took 90g as it is now the smallest you can buy for some reason. @500cals! 4 of them is a Woman's daily intake. Those 500g bars contain 2600 cals.

So you'd restrict bars of chocolate to no more than 222 calories? Would you apply that to other foods you deem unhealthy? No packets of unhealthy food may contain more than 222 calories?
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> So you'd restrict bars of chocolate to no more than 222 calories? Would you apply that to other foods you deem unhealthy? No packets of unhealthy food may contain more than 222 calories?

222cal seems an arbitary figure and is only based on a 2finger kit kat or a twix etc. My view is that these products are sold as snacks. In the snack isle at supermarkets, at the counter at the petrol station etc. A bar of chocolate is considered a snack. A 1kg bag of rice is not sold as a snack.

It's fair enough for us enlightened people to be happy with controlling what we eat and trying not to follow the strong messages we're being bombarded with. Seems to me there are lots of people who are either ignorant or don't care. Part of the education has to be that the advertisers and manufacturers are trying to decieve you into buying and consuming more. I can't see any government buying into that. Can you?
Sir Chasm - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock: Buying in to what?
If you limit the size of chocolate bars (all "unhealthy" foods if you're going to be consistent) then, as you rightly point out, people could buy a greater number and undo your good intentions. I guess you'll just have to reintroduce ration cards.
Neil Williams - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:

"Seems to me there are lots of people who are either ignorant or don't care. "

Those people are frankly not your problem.

Neil
hokkyokusei - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> ... I guess you'll just have to reintroduce ration cards.

Hey, that was MY idea!
mkean - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I guess you'll just have to reintroduce ration cards.

You sir are a limp wristed, fence sitting apologist for the unfit. If you are unable to function in society by taking appropriate steps to care for yourself then you should simply be sectioned so that the state can provide a regulated diet for you. Give the malingering buggers a chemical cosh to stop them hurting themselves and a bit of electric shock treatment to keep the muscles in good order. You could probably power the whole lot off waste body heat.

;-)
Sir Chasm - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to hokkyokusei: You can have all the credit.
Sir Chasm - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to mkean: How very dare you. I'm only proposing ration cards for the fat. And people who look like they might get fat. And people with kids - just to be safe. And benefit claimants. I think that's quite liberal.
Eric9Points - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I remember Ruby Wax once being asked about the obsession with fitness that the residents of Los Angeles seem to have. She replied that if they can't bounce a tennis ball off your ass they shoot you.

Seems fair to me.
Eric9Points - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Neil Williams)
> [...]
>
> Everything you do is being controlled or influenced by someone in some way.

Really, who's making you write this stuff at moment then?
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> "Seems to me there are lots of people who are either ignorant or don't care. "
>
> Those people are frankly not your problem.
>
> Neil

Unfortunately, it seems they are, or will be, when they've disabled themselves and expect my taxes to support them and their illness.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Eric9Points - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to DancingOnRock:
> (In reply to Neil Williams)
> [...]
>
> Unfortunately, it seems they are, or will be, when they've disabled themselves and expect my taxes to support them and their illness.

..and if you use that argument then fatso can turn round and tell you not to go climbing in case you incur some costs to the health and emergency services.

Anyway, what would you do about people who ate healthy food but were still bloaters? There are plenty of them around.
ranger*goy on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> So you'd restrict bars of chocolate to no more than 222 calories? Would you apply that to other foods you deem unhealthy? No packets of unhealthy food may contain more than 222 calories?

It could be like when you buy paracetamol, no more than 2 small packs or have them confiscated at the till :)
Timmd on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Neil Williams:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> "if across the whole population it lead to less suffering or more happiness"
>
> Do you genuinely think it will? Or would people rather be left alone to make their own decisions, even if nominally the wrong ones?
>
> Do you actually think things like prohibition work?
>
> Most people who drink alcohol, for instance, do so because they wish to. Same with eating choccy bars. I certainly do both because I find them pleasurable - on balance better than not doing.
>
> The one thing I will concede to is if a specific category of item can be proven to have a quantifiable financial cost to the NHS, policing etc, that were that item to become unavailable would certainly not be incurred, I accept the idea of it being taxed to cover that financial cost, just as it would become part of someone's insurance premium were those services provided commercially.
>
> I know it would be good for my health not to drink alcohol and to eat an extremely healthy diet, but I choose not to. That choice is none of anyone else's business, other than the financial implication mentioned.
>
> This is, to be fair, based on a political "ideal" of mine, which is that everyone should be free to do what they like provided it doesn't have an adverse impact on someone else (an adverse impact on themselves only being none of anyone else's business). That is in a purest sense impossible to achieve (almost any action will have some impact on someone else, and you don't necessarily have the chance to ask them if it's adverse to them or not) but it's an ideal.
>
> Neil

I can't decide to be honest, I do think something or several things need to be done, to improve peoples' health with regards to drinking and diet, and i've read in quite a few places that the NHS is reaching breaking point, or potentially will be if current trends continue in relation to obesity and type 2 diabetes and alcohol related health problems. It seems like either we find the money to fund the NHS, or we try and change what people do in finding something which actually works. Ideally it'd be great if people changed what they did through eduaction and choice and everything improved.

I don't think prohibition works, but reduced sugar in cereals doesn't seem quite the same thing to me, technically it is, but it wouldn't be banning frosties or cocoa pops, more leaving people the option of adding more sugar at home if they want.
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> ..and if you use that argument then fatso can turn round and tell you not to go climbing in case you incur some costs to the health and emergency services.
>
> Anyway, what would you do about people who ate healthy food but were still bloaters? There are plenty of them around.

No. I'm insured.

There may well be but how do you know which ones are eating healthily until you've rule out the ones that aren't.

They key thing here is that people are being knowingly misled.

The packaging is designed in the same way as a pull door handle is designed. So you don't have to think about what you're doing, you just react to an external stimulus. The door has a pull handle, you don't think, you just pull. Only then do you find out that the dopey architect has decided the pull handle looks better than a push plate and the door opens the other way.

I say the choice is an illusion.
stroppygob - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Ciro:
> (In reply to stroppygob)

> To be fair, I used to take a fairly similar position to yours - I'm fit, healhy and not overweight, why should I be prevented from buying the occassional bit of junk just because someone else can't control their own diet properly?
>
> These days I've come round to the idea that we have a collective responsibility to look after each other in the face of corporate greed though. These people are making profits out of pushing an unhealthy lifestyle on us, and I don't think we should allow it.


Ok mate, that's where you and I differ. Not a worry, it's good that we all have our own perspective.

I abhor the government making decisions which affect and limit my rational choices, as some other persons cannot be trusted to be sensible.
stroppygob - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to mkean) How very dare you. I'm only proposing ration cards for the fat. And people who look like they might get fat. And people with kids - just to be safe. And benefit claimants. I think that's quite liberal.


Good thinking. Add in mandatory eating dogs for anorexics.
DancingOnRock - on 09 Jan 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Ciro)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> Ok mate, that's where you and I differ. Not a worry, it's good that we all have our own perspective.
>
> I abhor the government making decisions which affect and limit my rational choices, as some other persons cannot be trusted to be sensible.

It's an admirable stance to take but totally flawed.

How much alcohol would you rationally consume before driving?

That's just one extreme example but there are hundreds of other things that the government regulates that you have no idea about and would make your life impossible to live if you had to research every single one of them before consuming a substance or taking part in an activity.

Have you ever taken any medicines?


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.