Restrictions on contents of food

Spuff Monkey · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:16

I know there's restrictions on food but are there any restrictions or guidelines on say, fat content of food in Britian?

What I mean is can a food manufacturer cram as much fat/sugar/other unhealthy things as they want into food in order to up the taste at the cost of the consumer's health?

jamief · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:20

Spuff Monkey said:
I know there's restrictions on food but are there any restrictions or guidelines on say, fat content of food in Britian?

What I mean is can a food manufacturer cram as much fat/sugar/other unhealthy things as they want into food in order to up the taste at the cost of the consumer's health?

Yes, they can.

arc@css · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:22

They have to label what the ingredients are but, within reason, can put as much saturated fat or sugar as they like. Whether people will buy it off course, varies.

Spuff Monkey · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:23

So instead of endless advertising campaigns from the government telling us to get off our fat arses and eat healthily which is falling on deaf ears for a lot, why not focus the attention on the food manufacturers who produce unhealthy foods.

There's no problem with using fat in food, it's overuse I find unecessary and the cause of many problems with obesity and other health related matters in Britain.

NiCkNaMe · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:24

Spuff Monkey said:
So instead of endless advertising campaigns from the government telling us to get off our fat arses and eat healthily which is falling on deaf ears for a lot, why not focus the attention on the food manufacturers who produce unhealthy foods.

There's no problem with using fat in food, it's overuse I find unecessary and the cause of many problems with obesity and other health related matters in Britain.

Because that would be verging on a serious infringment into human rights (imo?).

jamief · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:26

Spuff Monkey said:
So instead of endless advertising campaigns from the government telling us to get off our fat arses and eat healthily which is falling on deaf ears for a lot, why not focus the attention on the food manufacturers who produce unhealthy foods.

There's no problem with using fat in food, it's overuse I find unecessary and the cause of many problems with obesity and other health related matters in Britain.

Fat in food isn't a cause of obesity.

Taking in more calories than people expend is what causes obesity.

There is also this wonderful thing called personal responsibility - people should be able to eat what they like.

However being treated for obesity and related conditions should NOT be free on the NHS, seeing as it is self inflicted.

Spuff Monkey · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:26

Labour and their human rights. So it's being given the freedom to eat yourself to death that's stopping this?

Personal responsibility is a nice idea, but obesity is on the rise. Agree with you on the NHS matter though (another reason for my question)

NiCkNaMe · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:27

Spuff Monkey said:
Labour and their human rights. So it's being given the freedom to eat yourself to death that's stopping this?

Do you think it's acceptable for a government to tell us what to eat? Because that's what they would effectively be doing if they started removing certain products from the shelves..

Spuff Monkey · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:46

I'm not saying to remove it from the shelves. I'm saying is it not too much to ask for a government to regulate food manufacturers to reduce fat/calorie content of food where content is relatively excessive?

NiCkNaMe · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:15

Spuff Monkey said:
I'm not saying to remove it from the shelves. I'm saying is it not too much to ask for a government to regulate food manufacturers to reduce fat/calorie content of food where content is relatively excessive?

But by regulating the contents of food you are effectively changing what the food was originally, hence you are technically 'removing it from the shelves'.

I'm not being pedantic.. I understand what you are saying (in principle) but in my opinion it should not happen. I know the government has to cater for the weakest in society but there does need to be a line, and that line seems to be changing shape all the time

I know people shout 'foil hat time' quite regulary around here.. but I do think the day will come (perhaps not for a long time yet) when 1984 and equivilent texts come to fruition... but I guess i'm getting off topic now

Spuff Monkey · 9 Mar 2009 at 18:59

NiCkNaMe said:
But by regulating the contents of food you are effectively changing what the food was originally, hence you are technically 'removing it from the shelves'.

I'm not being pedantic.. I understand what you are saying (in principle) but in my opinion it should not happen. I know the government has to cater for the weakest in society but there does need to be a line, and that line seems to be changing shape all the time

I know people shout 'foil hat time' quite regulary around here.. but I do think the day will come (perhaps not for a long time yet) when 1984 and equivilent texts come to fruition... but I guess i'm getting off topic now

Lol just a bit. I say the food is more different with the additional 'badness' in it than it every was.

We'll have to agree to disagree here

mjt · 9 Mar 2009 at 19:46

you should watch that program that was on bcc last year, about the dude who made 'sausages'. that was shocking :eek:

as long as you label whatever's in it, you're fine

Nebzor · 9 Mar 2009 at 19:50

Unfortunately these are the sorts of foods the public seem to want to eat.

Having the government forcibly cease production of these foods is over the top and I think they know that hence the reactive rather than preventative nature of their current campaigns.

Spuff Monkey · 9 Mar 2009 at 19:55

Nebzor said:
Unfortunately these are the sorts of foods the public seem to want to eat.

Having the government forcibly cease production of these foods is over the top and I think they know that hence the reactive rather than preventative nature of their current campaigns.

Most have got me wrong here and read "ceased production" or "take off shelf". What I meant was reduction of fat/sugar content of already existing products.

Haircut · 9 Mar 2009 at 20:08

Spuff Monkey said:
Most have got me wrong here and read "ceased production" or "take off shelf". What I meant was reduction of fat/sugar content of already existing products.

Why should the government be able to tell me what to eat though?
What if I want the occasional treat that's loaded with sugar and/or fat?

How about we just let the government restrict everything we eat and then we'll all be a whole lot healthier?

Nebzor · 9 Mar 2009 at 20:15

Spuff Monkey said:
Most have got me wrong here and read "ceased production" or "take off shelf". What I meant was reduction of fat/sugar content of already existing products.

Well, ceasing production of very fatty foods is pretty much the same as removing the fat from very fatty foods (even more so if the un-healthiness was what people bought it for in the first place). The two will not be the same so you might as well have taken them off the shelves entirely.

manic_man · 9 Mar 2009 at 20:16

What we need to do is put a sensing collar around everyones neck at birth. If you take the collar off you go to prison.

What it does is sense how much sugar/salt/alcohol/anything bad is in your food as it enters your mouth, then if its over the limit, the collar gives you an electric shock, enough to cause real pain but not death, say a few thousand volts. The person has to pay for their collar at birth, it'll be reasonable though and the poorest in society will get theirs subsidised by the richest.

Give it a few years and we'll have everyone eating low sugar/salt/fat/anything foods and the NHS will get extra money from the collars.

Once that is sorted, we can set about tackling every other vice that humans have to keep them happy.

Orwell here we come.

N.B: facetious post

Spuff Monkey · 10 Mar 2009 at 09:00

The point is totally eluding you. I make a thread asking about means to improving the healthiness and quality of food and people see it as the government infringing of human rights. I'm starting to think that no matter what the government does it will be seen in a negative light, is that what society has become? Do we have a tabloid mentality about everything?

I'm saying treats should be treats, chocolate has always been bad for you and there's no change to that, nor should there be.

Ahh never mind, it's a lost cause.

a1ex2001 · 10 Mar 2009 at 09:28

Spuff Monkey said:
I'm saying treats should be treats, chocolate has always been bad for you and there's no change to that, nor should there be.

We are living in a unique time, we are the first generation where 99% of the population do not struggle to feed themselves no longer is anything other than the basic food a treat. 30 years ago a bottle of coke or an ice cream was a rare treat for most kids now it is an every day occurence for anyone who wants one. We are sloe the first of the computer generations where it is more fun to stay at home than go outside combine the two and you have massive obesity problems built into society. the only way to resolve this is to make luxury food much much more expensive and force people to exercise neither of which is ever going to happen.

The OP is right and certain legislation shold be enforced around food production, the use of trans-fats should be outlawed and the padding of food with crazy quantities of salt and sugar should also be restricted, this would have little to no effect on the variety of products available in or supermarkets it would just mean that they were all inherently healthier.

jas72 · 10 Mar 2009 at 09:30

jamief said:
However being treated for obesity and related conditions should NOT be free on the NHS, seeing as it is self inflicted.

Complete nonsense.