To think peoples lives are crap enough without needing the government to interfere with Meal Deals

[Jeansmeansheinz]

FFS just let people have the pleasure of a Meal Deal. I really don't need the Government telling me what I can and can't eat.

Similarly new developments round our way are being built without pavements

That could be outlawed by having a pavement mandate on new residential streets. So why don't the govt do that?

a world where the cheapest and easiest option is eating healthy

Until there is a gluten-free ready-made salad that doesn't taste like Stop and Grow, that will not happen.

I feel like everyone is knocking down a step in the right direction with whataboutery. Ok it's only one piece of a 1000 piece jigsaw but it's something.

Shops offer heavy discounts and incentives on fattening, unneccesary junk food snacks and fizzy drinks. There is no excuse for that. They can still sell that food and people can still buy it but it will cost a bit more. We need to get used to seeing a free bottle of water or discount on adding fruit or salad to a meal deal. Because otherwise people are stuck with "well i can only afford junk food".

The food industry is totally propped up with junk food and UPF. They will fight to the death to deny they have caused the obesity problem that is bringing down the NHS and the health of a nation.

To note that the WHO have announced today that aspartame has causual links to cancer.

And for those relaxed about meal deals, ready meals that contain emulsifiers, the research that declared these safe has never considered what they do to your gut. In the next five years, UPF will become a leading cause of disease in the U.K. and it needs addressing for everyone but particularly children.

Food companies don't care about you. They will find scientists who say it is safe and pay them. Independent research has been indicating problems with aspertame and UPF for years.

Indeed it has, I suspect everyone knows the risk of aspartame as people go on incessantly about them. It's interesting that the WHO have decided not to release the amount that someone would need to consume before its problematic. Of course the ideal is no one to ever consume any of these, but just like nicotine and alcohol these are so embedded that surely reasonable guidance is more useful ie to limit consumption. I'm more worried about pollution, use of chemicals on fruit & veg and whats entering the food chain via animal products.

People who are on the bare bones of their arse aren't going to be buying meal deals though are they. They're going to be buying large bottles of own brand fizzy, packets of sausage rolls/white bread/processed meat, multipack of crisps and chocolate multipacks for the same price. Its not a step in the right direction to ban meal deals because they sell them in the same shops of which you can get a higher volume of more unhealthy foods for a lower price.

90% in Neath.

It was bad in wales in the 80’s, your 30 years behind the uk in wales though.

It's interesting that people are against passive government intervention yet Japan passed the Metabo law to combat metabolic disease (Obesity/weight related). This was a direct intervention form the government with aid from employers.

use of chemicals on fruit & veg

You have to use chemicals on fruit and veg. They can't grow in a vacuum.

I try to eat healthily as I am actively trying to lose weight but the price of healthy food compared to unhealthy food is really ridiculous. If they want people to buy more healthy stuff then they need to get prices down. Genuinely don’t know how they can do that but until healthy food costs less than the rest it’s going to be very hard to get people to make better choices. These days everything is so bloody expensive so people are buying according to their budget. I’m not “well off” by any stretch of the imagination but I am struggling to afford healthier options.

To be honest, I think if the main problem on my mind was feeling that meal deals being restricted was "crap", I'd thank my lucky stars for my good fortune. 😁

Why is this a bad thing? They are not taking away meal deals but want them made healthier. If you want a big sandwich, grab bag of crisps and a bottle of coke, you can still have it but be prepared to pay a fat/sugar premium.

I'd be prepared to pay extra. Usually I have a bottle of water or small bottle of Tropicana with my meal deal but I had Coke yesterday. I was tired and had a long boring meeting to get through so needed the caffeine. If I'd had to pay extra I would have done.

The more this goes on, the more I think modern life is to blame. People are tired, stressed, short of money and don't have a good work/life balance. If we could somehow regulate the cost of living to be more in line with salaries, so life in general was just slower with more time for self care like researching and cooking healthy meals and exercise in the form of fun activity, I really think we'd see a difference. It's an almost impossible ask because it's a full cultural shift that isn't independent of the rest of the world, but I really think it's the only thing that could work.

We tried shaming and idealising extreme thinness in the 90s with diets out the wazoo, and all we got was a rise in eating disorders and obesity, to go with our mad house price and rent rises and stagnating wages.

The "main problem" is the knock-on effects that the Govt policing food has on my day-to-day working life as an autistic with a demanding job across multiple changing locations.

I need to be able to eat at work. Not fainting and not getting migraines is important.

Here we go again with blaming everything except for the individual. It is possible to say no to UPFs etc, people just don't want to. Just don't eat it.

Individuals need to take responsibility for their own diets. It's not up to anyone else but you to choose what you eat. But humans love to put the blame on anyone/anything but themselves. We seem to be quite weak-willed as a species.

Are you talking about water as a chemical? I grow my own and never use anything on them other than water and compost (no pesticides or fertilisers). I know that’s not going to be profitable on a commercial scale but they go too far nowadays with pesticide and antifungal use.

The damn government can have my Prawn Mayo Sandwich, packet of Brannigans ridged crisps and can of full fat coke when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

wow you really are attached to your meal deal

Haha

Are you in Wales? If not you’ll be ok

Water and compost are both made of chemicals. If you mean "pesticide-free" then say so.

I gave up trying to be pesticide-free when all my lettuces fed the slugs instead of me. I'm a big fan of slug pellets. I drawn the line at spray insecticides on edibles though, I'd rather share a bit with the caterpillars than use those.

Also, modern peat-free composts seem to be less nourishing than sawdust unless you buy the compost with added John Innes. I like plants that actually grow.

The "main problem" is the knock-on effects that the Govt policing food has on my day-to-day working life as an autistic with a demanding job across multiple changing locations.

I need to be able to eat at work. Not fainting and not getting migraines is important.

I'm autistic too. And of course it's important for you to eat! But this shouldn't stop you eating. You could still buy titems separately if you want specific things, they just won't necessarily be grouped together into an "offer".

I genuinely don't believe eating healthily costs more. I think people are comparing eating healthy food to eating processed fast/ convenience food. Yes if you're after a quick snack a packet of crisps may cost less than a fruit pot but not less than a banana or apple you could have grabbed from home.

I work for a community organisation and we run a free course funded by the government which teaches people to eat healthily on a budget. As in learning how to cook from scratch, doing meal plans and sourcing good quality cheap ingredients. The feedback we get is that people's weekly shop has come down not up. Fast/ convenient/ snack food will most likely always be cheaper but if you prepare your own food from home it will cost less in the long run and be better for you.

I believe it cost more in fuel to eat healthy. I can tell people that they can make a really delicious lenitl dal with one pack of lentils, some onions, tomatoes and spices that will last their family three days, but if they don’t have the fuel to cook it (or indeed a cooker), then that advice is useless.

But on the whole, if you have a cooker, if you can afford the gas or electric to cook, if you have a fridge to keep that meal fresh over 3 days, or a freezer to store the extra portions in, then I agree, cooking real food from scratch is cheaper.

Got to love these threads and the whole 'nanny state' thing. Wouldn't it be the 'nanny state' that would deal with your medical issues caused by obesity?
If everyone in the UK was a healthy weight, the NHS would save £14 billion a year.
We have to do something and after all, prevention is better than the cure.