Obesity is not a choice

Take "plus sized" clothes off sale.

Make all doors half as wide :D

Could work. Or we'll have loads of fat naked people stuck in doorways.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
In light of the report from Cancer Research UK, who found that children who were exposed to junk food advertising, were twice as likely to become obese than those who weren't, (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/jfm_briefing_jan_19.pdf) I'd suggest the following;

Things I think we should definitely do;

- Implement chapter 2 of the government's obesity prevention program, with includes a 20% reduction in calories in food marketed for children, strict curbs on advertising, and a reduction in added sugars
- Modify planning legislation to prevent fast food outlets from being within a certain distance from schools, and place caps on the total number within a certain distance.
- A complete ban on trans fats
- Forcing shops to remove 'junk food traps' at checkouts
- Placing caps on ratios of certain types of food at supermarkets, increasing the ratio of fresh fruit and veg, and removing excess amounts of snacks, and processed food from shelves.
- Educate children about metabolic disease, in the same way we educate them about sex education and STDs,
- Get rid of stupid and dangerous 'trends' such as 'fit at any size'

Those are some of the things I think would have impact.
Click to expand...

So you actually DO want to control what private businesses sell and how they sell it.
 
Twinz said:
So you actually DO want to control what private businesses sell and how they sell it.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I've been perfectly clear on this the whole time.

It's also not just me that wants this, but just about everybody in the medical profession who's studied obesity, (again read the Cancer Research UK report) including independent advisors to the government want.

Indeed, trans fats are already banned in many other countries because they're poison. Curbs on advertising are already present (tobacco advertising and packaging) so some of those things already exist, in one form or another.
 
I think what you'll find is that even those legislative proposals do not solve the problem by themselves.

You will end up with junk food that is not explicitly targeted at children (like Coke et al), that can be ordered in bulk over the internet.

If anything you'll put bricks and mortar at a disadvantage. I don't think you can solve this problem by penalising physical retailers.

Eventually you'll have to take complete control of the entire food industry, and ban many kinds of food outright. That is if you want to solve this through legislation and not put any inconvenient responsibility on consumers themselves.
 
FoxEye said:
Eventually you'll have to take complete control of the entire food industry, and ban many kinds of food outright. That is if you want to solve this through legislation and not put any inconvenient responsibility on consumers themselves.
Click to expand...

The problem is, there's not much else of any substance really left to try.

Health professionals, celebrities and politicians have hammered the public to death on personal responsibility, especially in the US. Michelle Obama's 'eat less, move more' plan was a complete disaster, no program that's focussed on getting people to change their ways has even made the slightest bit of difference. Continuing on this path and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity.

The reason health professionals and bodies of study are recommending legislation, isn't because they've all got it in for the big nasty evil food industry, it's because pretty much all the other options have been tried, and they've all failed.

Remember, I don't want to see the food industry razed to the ground - I want there to be a food industry. What I don't want, is a food industry that is wrecking the health of children and young adults and causing problems for the future - whilst running all the way to the bank. Meanwhile hiding behind a message that is from the exact same playbook that the tobacco industry used back in the 80s; "It's not our fault they smoke our products"

I could use the example of fixed odds betting terminals in bookies.

Betting on the horses has been something that people have done forever, and it's never really been a problem. However - the betting companies got greedy and started filling their outlets with those fixed odds betting terminals. The end result was people becoming instantly addicted, and parting with thousands, and it was wrecking their lives. This happened because the problem grew out of control.

We don't need to ban all bookies and betting on things, I'm fine with people placing bets and gambling, but we do need to control and legislate when large corporations become too greedy and it starts disproportionally affecting people. Which is exactly what happened with fixed odds betting.
 
dowie said:
Education, information campaigns to counter it etc.. we've got rid of the idea that cigarettes are fine for you for example.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's been common knowledge that being fat is bad for you for decades. The only way you're going to get rid of these campaigns is by banning SJWs from social media.
 
The smoking thing (I was a smoker, regularly, from 15 to nearly 30, few breaks in between) was only brought about by legislation AND education. I was annoyed when my choice of cigarette broke the £5 price point, now it's something like £13. If I could go back and have a word with my 15 year old self I would. I knew it was bad for you of course from secondary school education. Every adult I knew as a child was a smoker because that was just a thing they did, even the head mistress of my primary school. I can still remember the smell of her office!

When you're a kid and all the people you know microwave meals or buy **** from the chicken shop every day, what are you going to do?

The idea that being OBESE is fine, because inclusion, is very dangerous imo
 
******** obesity isn’t a choice, in March last year I was 125kg and had a bmi of 39.4 (Obese), this morning after over a year of bloody hard work I’m 94.6kg and my bmi is 29.8 (overweight).
 
robj20 said:
Who decides what food fits into each category.
Not everyone agrees what is and isn't healthy.

I'd put butter in the healthy and pasta in the unhealthy.
Click to expand...

To avoid arguments like that, it would be best to start with the obvious like... fruit and veg subsidised, white suger and white flours taxed.... or even whole foods subsidised with 'overly' processed foods taxed. I say overly because some processing is much worse than other processing; boiling an egg for example.

P.s I agree that butter is not unhealthy :) and that a lot of overly processed pasta and white overly processed bread etc is not, dicounting moderation ofc.
 
Eurofighter said:
Unhealthy food tax. Use the money to subsidise healthy food
Click to expand...

Totally disagree with an 'unhealthy' food tax.

1 - it will be impossible to police and judge what is classed as an unhealthy food.

2- I shouldn't be penalised for buying an 'unhealthy' food on occasion, just because loads of other people can't control their eating.
 
Nasher said:
Fruit contains quite a bit of sugar, so that needs taxing.
Click to expand...
Fruit sugar (from an actual piece of fruit) is a bit different. Mainly because fruit is a lot less sugar dense than the sugar you get from overly processed foods. It also tends to have a nice ratio of fiber to go with it, which helps the body when it comes to feeling full and, as fiberous things tend to offer more chewing resistance you ingest the sugar a bit slower which is better for the liver.

So you eat an apple or two and you feel more full and have taken in a lot less sugar than the same weight of mars bars, except with the mars bars you feel less full so you are much more likely to have another one.
 
Shadowness said:
Totally disagree with an 'unhealthy' food tax.

1 - it will be impossible to police and judge what is classed as an unhealthy food.

2- I shouldn't be penalised for buying an 'unhealthy' food on occasion, just because loads of other people can't control their eating.
Click to expand...

I get that, but if it is 'on occasion', does it really matter is a choccie bar is £2 instead of £1?

If anything, it would sway me even more away from buying the nutritionally defunct junk.

Part of the problem is that sugar and wheat are crazy cheap, so have crazy good profit margins. Also their associated industries are massive.
 
Threepwood said:
Fruit sugar (from an actual piece of fruit) is a bit different. Mainly because fruit is a lot less sugar dense than the sugar you get from overly processed foods. It also tends to have a nice ratio of fiber to go with it, which helps the body when it comes to feeling full and as fiberous things tend to offer more chewing resistance you ingest the sugar a bit slower which is better for the liver.

So you eat an apple or two and you feel more full and have taken in a lot less sugar than the same weight of mars bars, except with the mars bars you feel less full so you are much more likely to have another one.
Click to expand...

True, but at the same time many people discount the sugar content entirely, fruit is just good, so eating 3 apples, 2 oranges, and drinking a litre of Innocent smoothie is healthy, when that is very far from the truth. It is just a buttload of sugar, with no where near enough fibre to even vaguely counter that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom