No anti junk food laws

[starkadder]

in the Guardian here www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/07/no-anti-junk-food-laws

The comments are all outraged but I have to say, although I thought I was a pretty typical Guardian reader, I would rather there weren't laws against junk food. I quite like eating a packet of crisps every now and again. Surely education here is the key anyway - allowing people to make their own, informed decisions?

Am I missing something?

the smoking ban in public buildings has saved the NHS money and has reduced deaths the smoking ban has reduced heart attacks and strokes - ear on year this will save money

People don't like banning things - yet there are so many people that like the smoking ban as it creates smoke free areas and has assisted people to stop smoking altogether - yet people didn't do this until the ban came in

People don't like the thought of a ban but they also don't like the thought of the NHS being overused and taxes raising - smoking doesn't pay for the burden to the NHS

Food isn't taxed so junk food could be reduced by this method and create cheaper healthy food

I'm not sure what new laws would be feasible really, but I'm favour of something being done. I'm really upset about the school dinners thing, and the fact they aren't banning trans fats.

I've never been an anti-nanny-state person, it's all very well Lansley saying people need to take responsibility but so many people aren't - ok fine, they only have themselves to blame when they die of some obesity-related illness, but what about their kids?

as I say, I've no idea what could work, I just hate that the govt are as somebody else said rolling over for the food industry. sometimes people need to be helped to find what's best for them.

you put your toddler to bed at, say 7.30, because you know it's best for them. if they say "no mummy I want to stay up til midnight every night" you don't just let them, do you?

I would like to see local councils take soem responsability for food venues at planning stage - so they are not near school.

I would like to see plaaning granted on menus - therefore reducing menus that are to junk orientated

trans fat and fake sugar banned form all food stuffs

fast food takeaway meals have to pay tax at 20% - unless 75% of the ingrediants are fresh in every dish on the menu

I woant to see laws impossed that don't have loop holes so if it wouldn't work - then ditch it for a smile law that will work and will help

"fast food takeaway meals have to pay tax at 20%"

And your wish shall be granted Cinderella. All food served in restaurants or takeaways is subject to VAT already - soon to be 20%. (As are alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps, savoury snacks, ice-cream, soft-drinks and mineral water.) All other foods are VAT exempt.

Is that why Pringles tried to argue that they were a cake?

smoking doesn't pay for the burden to the NHS>>

Actually it does. Several times over. They can't afford to ban it. If they brought in a total ban they'd have to close hospitals etc.

If you go with the principle that you can stop people eating things that are unhealthy you should take it all the way.

Let's see..

Ban skiing holidays. They are dangerous.

Ban all alcohol of course.

Have compulsory daily exercise (like in 1984 which this country resembles more each day)

and so on...

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think this is very interesting. I don't know much about transfats - has anyone got a link (too lazy to google properly) so I can learn more?

mathsmadmummy - I think that's my point though - I DON'T want to be treated like a toddler.

"Let's see..
Ban skiing holidays. They are dangerous.
Ban all alcohol of course.
Have compulsory daily exercise (like in 1984 which this country resembles more each day)"

onagar, please don't give the socialists ideas, they will put all of these on their wishlist

starkadder, here is some info on trans fat
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-391523/The-fats-didnt-know-kill-you.html

www.transfatfree.com/pages/articles.htm

If they brought a total ban in they wouldn't actually need those hospitals - as you wouldn't have 90000 people needing the beds to die in form smoking related illnesses every year - they would be able to die at home

we were talking about the smoking thing in law class (before the public ban) and my teacher told us about how the govt can't afford to ban it altogether, as onagar said they'd have to close hospitals etc. in fact he reckoned the only reason they were suddenly doing more about reducing rates was because the amount of people getting ill suddenly increased, as it was all the OAPs who'd started smoking in the war.

thing is in the long run it'll save us money - but it'd take a few decades to get a healthier nation (since e.g. older people currently smoking are still more likely to get seriously ill even if they stopped now). the govt just won't/can't think ahead.

apologies for my lactivism but it's a similar thing with trying to increase BFing rates. they KNOW that if BF rates were better it'd lead to healthier children (at population level), and save NHS money with less children suffering gastroenteritis blah blah blah... but they won't invest much money in it because the effects won't appear for a while.

I know they are now constrained by credit crunch and whatever, but IMO it's the govt acting like toddlers - not seeing that some things are worth investing in now, for future gain... no, they want it NOW NOW NOW!

I don't want to be treated like a toddler either BTW, I'm a sensible person - don't smoke or drink, I eat healthily and so do my kids. but if I can just point out (from my pedestal!) that there is a massive part of society that just doesn't know how to look after itself properly, and while legislating may be patronising, it'd be worth it if it got the population healthier. IMO.

Legislation might work at the other end of the health chain of course. A free NHS is a marvellous thing but there are no strings attached. It's all rights and no responsibilities. If you drove a car knowing that any knocks and dents would be fixed for free you'd arguably be more careless with it. A system of preventative medical care (coupled with better education) may therefore be the way forward. Not sure what it would look like but I'm thinking in terms of a Human MOT... regular check-ups and advice to prevent problems rather than waiting until someone has a heart-attack or needs their gallbladder removing. Incentives (lower prescription charges or NI contributions perhaps?) for those who meet certain criteria. Targeting the right people rather than blanket bans.

sounds good to me. can't see it happening though as it's all about the quick fix these days.

ivykaty44, MathsMadMummy's point was a better one about gaining in the long run. Yours was inaccurate. Even the NHS admit they make more than they pay out for smoking related illness. Or rather the government does. I don't know if they really give it to the NHS. Someone has to pay for the house of commons bar and duck houses.

MathsMadMummy, please don't tell the government that. I doubt they have thought it through.

Claig. I wouldn't worry. This government is less 'caring' so will mostly leave us to our own devices. We only need worry about governments that 'want to look after us' They are the dangerous ones.

The government would not need to lose money if smoking was banned. They would just raise the money elsewhere.

Hm. Thanks very much for the transfats links. V interesting and I think it would have been right to legislate against them.

Mathsmadmummy - this thing about massive parts of society not looking after themselves....makes me uncomfortable. I don't actually live in the UK at the moment so am probably naive. But surely education is better than legislation if that's the issue? Treating people like they're stupid is not going to help them be less stupid. We tell our toddlers what to do but at the same time educate them...and hopefully we won't be ordering them about when they're 25 (or we'll try not to..!)

I am sorry - but I don't buy the bit about:

**in fact he reckoned the only reason they were suddenly doing more about reducing rates was because the amount of people getting ill suddenly increased, as it was all the OAPs who'd started smoking in the war.
**

Unless this teacher comment was in the 70's

All the soldiers in the second world war were 16/17+ and the average age was 19

Which would make them 85 when the smoking ban came in - thats for those that are still alive - now they would be 90 year olds - average life expectancey is not even that old

If it saves money in a few years and is a long term gain - surely that would be better? regardless of politics saving lifes would be better and sod the money aspect

sorry but the tax thing always seems to come up and I am sure it is a red herring, looking at the facts that if people stopped harming there bodies they would save money - regardless if it is food abuse or tabacco abuse.

if you can show me that smoking is good for the NHS and keeps hospitals open, I am open to the suggstion..

Tax is a red herring. Tax is not ring fenced for particular spending it is just money paid to the state.

"Treating people like they're stupid is not going to help them be less stupid."

totally agree. education is obviously essential... I just think that education will take a very long time (a few generations maybe?) to actually work and maybe in the meantime a bit of legislation would help (as I've said, I don't really know what specifically). Example - with eating healthily. it's all very well teaching children at school how to get their 5 a day blah blah blah, but often it's not enough to get their parents to change so they'll still get fed junk at home. this'll also make it harder for them to pass the education on to their own children.

ivykaty44 he didn't mean the rates of illness had suddenly increased really recently, as it'd taken them a while to get to the public smoking ban.

The only reason I mention the tax is that once a week someone posts that smoking costs the NHS far more than taken in taxes on smokers. I wish we could put in on snopes with the other myths.

So I point out that this is far from the case.
Then predictably someone says "oh but that's not the point"

Which is fine, but it was your point not mine. You must have thought it was the point when you said it.

"They would just raise the money elsewhere">>

Yes they could, but they could do that in addition to keeping this money.

Anyway is everyone happy at the enormous rise in tax this would mean? It's a lot of money and nearly all of the cost is the tax.

The only way to ensure that we eat healthily is for the government to implement rigorous laws for food manufacturers and to give up lecturing us on what we should eat. The important considerations would be salt and sugar quantities and the types and quantity of fat used. The Food Standards Authority which should act as a watchdog on our behalf appears to be distinctly powerless! One again we hear the words 'non regulatory approach' which basically means 'self regulatory approach' This has been ongoing for many years now and ofcourse the food industry welcomes this so called 'new move' because it suits them very well indeed! It 's the go ahead to carry on as normal.
No government, what ever party, has been prepared to take bold action on this. Probably one of the main reasons for this is that many food businesses donate large amounts of money to party funds.

I'd like to see all tax other than income tax to be explicitly for behavior modification, and have a much higher rate of income tax, so the tax issue really is moot from my point of view.

I'm very much in favour of behavioural incentives - for example I'd love a free gym membership as a reward for losing weight - but it's unenforceable surely, unless you watch people with cameras all day long, or microchip them.

You can't legislate against human nature despite what a bunch of hysterical Guardian reading halfwits might tell you.

People should be free to eat whatever they like. Some will opt to gorge themselves on rubbish, most won't.

The 'Ban everything now' tendency are cordially invited to move to North Korea.

People should be free to eat whatever they like, but that comes down to many issues.

Having the money to choose - relevant to low cost chemically produced fillers being present in cheaper foods.

Information being available to enable people to choose effectively - relevant to issues such as better labelling and public information. These issues were championed by the Food Standards Agency and opposed by Food Industry. The FSA is now to be axed.

People being enabled to make a choice - vending machines in schools sponsored by certain companies.

There are different forms of control. Without government intervention, we are left at the mercy of companies who have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise profits. The issue of the food we eat is much to important to leave to the same market forces that brought us the BP disaster, banking crisis, etc.