Food dictatorship?

[Charles Bannerman]

Small changes could make a big difference - especially where kids are concerned. It's one thing telling an adult what he can and can't eat. Quite another promoting addictive, dangerous foods to kids. But low-fat chips, wholemeal rolls instead of white low-fibre, sugared bread, lower fat meats with added vegetable protein, less sugar in products etc etc. A huge health benefit for little (actually, I'd say no) sacrifice.

Yes, there's a big difference between educating kids in good eating habits and providing them with these opportunities at, for instance, school meals. I wouldn't pretend that the uptake is universal but every little helps.

The idea of some kind of "fat tax" is appealing, albeit very difficult to implement. But maybe some consideration should be made of the possibility of surcharging the obese for healthcare they need as a result of their obesity. This is in effect what happens with smokers and drinkers who pay duty on these commodities in proportion to the extent to which they use them and hence to the likelihood of their using NHS resources to counteract the effects.

What about this thought? There have been proposals from politicians (actually from the party whose leader looks as if he enjoys lots of ?9K lunches) to impose a minimum pricing regime on alcohol to prevent excessive consumption and hence abuse. There has been a degree of resistance to this suggestion.

But is the prospect of implementing a minimum pricing regime not an equally logical solution for curbing the abuse of food? What would the public response be to that?

I'm not actually suggesting this - merely inviting a discussion.

Let me end with this anecdote. It's not all that long since the Scottish Young Athletes' League was sponsored by........ McDonalds! :024: A bizarre case of a healthy and fitness promoting activity for youngsters beong sponsored by the world's biggest manufacturer of junk food.

On the other hand both sides of the Old Firm have for some time been sponsored by brewers.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Charles Bannerman

[caley100]

Some good points Charlie, i'd agree about Salmond being what he is and also being a pratt.

There is however a possible sponsorship between KFC and the Harriers, resulting from spectators watching you running past with the skimpy shorts reminding people about chicken legs, and making them hungry for a KFC.

Is this true?

[+DoofersDad]

Whilst sympathetic to a "fat tax", it is difficult to see how it would work. If you charge the obese for hospital treatment then how can you be sure the illness they present with is related to their obesity? Would you not also discourage them from getting treatment when really needed?

But I'm sure we all agree that the proposal to standardise portion size is just plain stupid. A large sportsman or farm labourour will need a far higher calory intake than a frail old lady for example. In my view, standardisation would be discriminatory in that it would impose different proportions of calorific requirements for different people. In any case, why shouldn't we enjoy pigging out once in a while for a treat?

Mind you, one advantage of standardising portion sizes would be that in some of the more up market establishments we might actually get a reasonable helping on our plates. I can think of one or two places where a visit to the chippy is required following an evening's "fine dining".

[MrsICTFC]

Maybe they can come to my house and check out that I am eating healthy there?

[Charles Bannerman]

Mind you, one advantage of standardising portion sizes would be that in some of the more up market establishments we might actually get a reasonable helping on our plates. I can think of one or two places where a visit to the chippy is required following an evening's "fine dining".

I believe the excuse for this kind of rip off is to call it "Nouvelle Cuisine".

And I will ignore Caley100's preceding calumny which I take to be retaliation for my earlier comments on another thread about his war service.

[ictchris]

Eating fatty food does not necessarily make someone obese. There's no such things as bad food just bad diets. Taxing fatty food would simply punish the vast majority of consumers and would most probably cost almost as much as it took in.

In addition to it not working I also think that it's wrong for governments to try and influence the choices of citizens in this way. We are all free willed individuals who are able to choose our diets without help from some bureaucrat. I think that it's the overwhelming urge to control and judge other people that drives these intiatives rather than any nobel concern for public health.

Edited February 25, 2010 by ictchris

[caley100]

Increasing the tax on alcohol is another possible feckwit scheme from the clowns at Holyrood, penalising everybody for the sake of a few.

Its like giving every driver 3 points & a ?60 fine to try a slow the few speeding motorists.

[Heilandee]

Its like giving every driver 3 points & a ?60 fine to try a slow the few dangerously speeding motorists.

Fixed it for you,but they already do this :P

[Georgeios]

Just a quick thought on this, whats stopping us buying two meals then......

[Alex MacLeod]

Obesity is a problem but why should I, a mere 10st 10lb, have to be penalised for something I have no control over. Whats needed is not stupid taxes and even more stupid idea's from individuals but a total change in lifestyle. THIS ARTICLE is quite interesting. People are getting less exercise and are spending more time sat at a desk than ever they did before. Parents also encourage their kids to sit in front of a computer or game machine cos its a cheap and easy form of babysitting. The streets aren't safe so the kids dont get chucked out to play. Nobody has time to cook a family meal so convenience foods become the norm. There are no parks for a kick about with your mates. Those bits of ground have all been sold of to the builders. Society made the people fat. Taxes wont make them thin.

[Charles Bannerman]

Obesity is a problem but why should I, a mere 10st 10lb, have to be penalised for something I have no control over. Whats needed is not stupid taxes and even more stupid idea's from individuals but a total change in lifestyle. THIS ARTICLE is quite interesting. People are getting less exercise and are spending more time sat at a desk than ever they did before. Parents also encourage their kids to sit in front of a computer or game machine cos its a cheap and easy form of babysitting. The streets aren't safe so the kids dont get chucked out to play. Nobody has time to cook a family meal so convenience foods become the norm. There are no parks for a kick about with your mates. Those bits of ground have all been sold of to the builders. Society made the people fat. Taxes wont make them thin.

I largely agree with that Alex and, with a Body mass index of 23.3, don't see why I should have to be penalised and deprived of the food I need to fuel the 5 hours or so of strenuous exercise of which I partake to keep fit. In fact, rather than tax fatties maybe it would be better for them to give people who look after themselves and hence don't use much NHS resources a tax rebate.

Someone earlier suggested circumventing any "maximum portion" law by buying two meals. Why should people who either need or can healthily accommodate a larger amount of food be penalised by the extra cost of having to do that?

Also, the lifestyle habits which Alex describes above also mirror quite closely some of the reasons for the problems not a few sports are having in maintaining their performance levels.

Finally, perhaps a rather more radical approach to all this fuss about stopping obesity.

Why bother with the problem at all? Why take artificial measures to change the course of what is arguably no more than good old Darwinian Natural Selection which emphasises the survival of the fittest. If people are stupid and ill disciplined enough to allow themselves to get into such a state of obesity, then Natural Selection responds to that situation.

A case for some kind of Culinary Darwin Award perhaps?

[tm4tj]

I have a similar rating Charles, although mine is also 23.3, it was measured on the GMI, the Guiness Mass Index. This is the index that a lot of athletes use. The likes of Jocky Wilson, Andy Fordham etc, proper athletes.

I'm hungry now, off for a big fry up.

[Alex MacLeod]

Talking of sportsmen. The big name sponsors for the London Olympics are...............Cadbury, McDonald's and Coca-Cola............foods for health and vitality.

[Charles Bannerman]

Talking of sportsmen. The big name sponsors for the London Olympics are...............Cadbury, McDonald's and Coca-Cola............foods for health and vitality.

Disgrace, isn't it!

[Yngwie]

All 2012 competitors training camps should serve nothing but those products.