Well that's a novel idea...you should tell someone...
and btw the seat belt business was initially an "advisory campaign" as well...in the end they made that compulsory (ditto with cell phone usage)...and whilst promotion of tobacco abstinence has been a "promotional campaign" for donkeys years...year after year it's clearly failing to have the required effect...since year after year new laws are brought in...same with alcohol.
Perhaps there comes a point where preaching or softly softly catchee monkey has its limits?
And perhaps you could explain...what would actually be the harm in requiring reduction of salt and sugar in processed food...if the answer is none or very marginal what's the problem?
It denies people the right to choose the foods that they like and are used to. 'It wouldn't do any harm' is not a valid reason to ban something. It wouldn't do any harm to ban Eastenders, it wouldn't do any harm to ban salt and vinegar crisps (soon to be vinegar crisps).
I eat a lot of processed food mainly cos I can't really cook due to disability. I do however try to balance this out by eating a lot of fresh fruit and veg and drinking mainly water. So my diet is partly choice and partly circumstance. There are plenty of low fat and low salt options available but I personally resent the meals becoming any blander than they are already. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the voluntary regulation (bullying) has actually worked. If I made the meals myself they'd probably end up more rich and salty than the ready meals, the same is true of celebrity chef recipes.
... However, it is entirely possible to include ANY foodstuff in a healthy diet/lifestyle, and this is where the focus should be, not on demonising certain foods. A balanced diet ( not too much of any one thing) and regular exercise is what should be being promoted.
It denies people the right to choose the foods that they like and are used to. 'It wouldn't do any harm' is not a valid reason to ban something. It wouldn't do any harm to ban Eastenders, it wouldn't do any harm to ban salt and vinegar crisps (soon to be vinegar crisps).
I remember the days when the salt in a packet of crisps came in a little paper twist, so was optional
I know people here have to toe the party line on this, but I think you'll have a tough job convincing people that sugar, salt and fat are on par with guns and they shouldn't be allowed to eat foods that some tame expert has deemed unhealthy.
Does anyone actually believe a bowl of Frosties causes obesity? This is more about being seen to do something more than anything. In terms of diet and nutrition I doubt one size fits all anyway. What would cause one person problems, another would be perfectly fine eating.
They had 13 wasted years in office 1997-2010 - why did they not do this then? Whether it's by voluntary or statutory means, there is a nutritional case for limiting the amount of salt, sugar and fats in processed foods especially when it comes to foods that are marketed at children and this is an area where any government needs to do better.
Well that's a novel idea...you should tell someone...
and btw the seat belt business was initially an "advisory campaign" as well...in the end they made that compulsory (ditto with cell phone usage)...and whilst promotion of tobacco abstinence has been a "promotional campaign" for donkeys years...year after year it's clearly failing to have the required effect...since year after year new laws are brought in...same with alcohol.
Perhaps there comes a point where preaching or softly softly catchee monkey has its limits?
And perhaps you could explain...what would actually be the harm in requiring reduction of salt and sugar in processed food...if the answer is none or very marginal what's the problem?
The difference being that there is no benefit to smoking/not wearing a seatbelt/having lead in petrol that can be mitigated through balance; and also, a level of salt and fat is a requirement of a healthy diet (minerals and fat soluable vitamins).
Foods are not challenged on the amount of salt or fat they add to the national diet, but because it is easier to point at these things as being bad without understanding a wider, more holistic view is required. Eating nothing but apples would make you ill too, just in a different way from a diet of Mars Bars and crisps
Incorrect. There are many food additives, widely used in previous decades, that are banned and have been for some time.
Do you think food manufacturers should be allowed to use them once more?
Additives may or may not be foodstuffs. Vitamin C has an E-number after all (as does the colour from carrots).
Those that have been banned (and the bans vary across the world) have been shown to be unsafe, and therefore removed. Salt and fat are required in a typical diet, so the focus must be on the whole diet and not individual foods, and on those foods that contribute the most to over consumption of the things we should try to limit (for example, salty snacks don't contribute nearly as much salt to the national diet as you think - self addition, bread, soup, cereal for example are far worse)
Labour has urged the government to consider introducing legal limits on sugar, salt and fat-content in food.
Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham says the government's response - working with industry through its Responsibility Deal - has been complacent. "It is clear that the current voluntary approach is not working. We need to open our minds to new approaches in tackling child obesity."
He says it is time for "new thinking" on how to tackle child obesity. "Labour wants to lead this debate. That is why we are asking the public and experts if new limits for sugar, fats and salts would be the right approach."
I am not sure how practical this is, and if it's looking at the problem in the right way. While there is a clear problem with obesity, how can "banning" foods be the way forward?
... er the line in the articles says:
"Labour wants to lead this debate. That is why we are asking the public and experts if new limits for sugar, fats and salts would be the right approach."
You say: "Put legal limits on sugar, salt and fat: Labour"
Quite misleading, and therefore not worth a response.
Additives may or may not be foodstuffs. Vitamin C has an E-number after all (as does the colour from carrots).
Those that have been banned (and the bans vary across the world) have been shown to be unsafe, and therefore removed. Salt and fat are required in a typical diet, so the focus must be on the whole diet and not individual foods, and on those foods that contribute the most to over consumption of the things we should try to limit (for example, salty snacks don't contribute nearly as much salt to the national diet as you think - self addition, bread, soup, cereal for example are far worse)
Sugar is added to processed food to sweeten it - in that sense it is an additive, just like artificial sweeteners.
The principle of limiting harmful quantities of additives (or banning them completely in some cases) has long been accepted by society.
"Labour wants to lead this debate. That is why we are asking the public and experts if new limits for sugar, fats and salts would be the right approach."
You say: "Put legal limits on sugar, salt and fat: Labour"
Quite misleading, and therefore not worth a response.
And as I have stated, these consultations, whether conducted by Labour or Conservative governments, nearly always end in the most illiberal option. Therefore it is quite easy to prejudge the outcome.
Many think corporate power is the strongest influence in politics. I disagree - it is politicians' egos. Tobacco is a big industry but it doesn't stop new anti-smoking laws being introduced every six months.
The new Labour policy of banning Coco-Pops and Frosties (snigger) and 'Fatty Foods' will of course go down like a barrel of cold sick in Doncaster. A seat held by a certain Ed Silliband. Where it was discovered it was the UK's fattest constituency!!! Conservative gain in 2015- Coco-Pops or Silly Milly! I wonder if 'Tony the Tiger' will stand as well:D
The new Labour policy of banning Coco-Pops and Frosties (snigger) and 'Fatty Foods' will of course go down like a barrel of cold sick in Doncaster. A seat held by a certain Ed Silliband. Where it was discovered it was the UK's fattest constituency!!! Conservative gain in 2015- Coco-Pops or Silly Milly! I wonder if 'Tony the Tiger' will stand as well:D
... However, it is entirely possible to include ANY foodstuff in a healthy diet/lifestyle
I get the feeling that the idea behind that statement was something like you could even have a Big Mac and Fries, as part of a healthy diet/lifestyle, as long as you didn't eat them too often.
I think they should look into whether it is sugar that is causing obesity in children or whether it is something else that is added to food that is causing it.
"Labour wants to lead this debate. That is why we are asking the public and experts if new limits for sugar, fats and salts would be the right approach."
You say: "Put legal limits on sugar, salt and fat: Labour"
Quite misleading, and therefore not worth a response.
Thank you for highlighting that aspect, Welsh-lad. My own view is that this matter should be informed by academic experts and published research which should then lead to recommendations for government to implement by either voluntary or statutory means.
[QUOTE=MizManiac;63392443]The new Labour policy of banning Coco-Pops and Frosties (snigger) and 'Fatty Foods' will of course go down like a barrel of cold sick in Doncaster. A seat held by a certain Ed Silliband. Where it was discovered it was the UK's fattest constituency!!! Conservative gain in 2015- Coco-Pops or Silly Milly! I wonder if 'Tony the Tiger' will stand as well:D[/QUOTE]
It's not a question of banning Coco Pops or Frosties - it is just reducing the processed sugar content of these breakfast cereals so that they are healthier to consume.
The new Labour policy of banning Coco-Pops and Frosties (snigger) and 'Fatty Foods' will of course go down like a barrel of cold sick in Doncaster. A seat held by a certain Ed Silliband. Where it was discovered it was the UK's fattest constituency!!! Conservative gain in 2015- Coco-Pops or Silly Milly! I wonder if 'Tony the Tiger' will stand as well:D
You kept a stock of all the blue smarties didn't you.
"Labour wants to lead this debate. That is why we are asking the public and experts if new limits for sugar, fats and salts would be the right approach."
You say: "Put legal limits on sugar, salt and fat: Labour"
Quite misleading, and therefore not worth a response.
I also pointed that out at the beginning of the thread Welsh-lad but it seems no matter how many times it's said, some posters just can't understand it.
I also pointed that out at the beginning of the thread Welsh-lad but it seems no matter how many times it's said, some posters just can't understand it.
Aww why so sad?
Do let us know when you've decided if a legal limit is something you'd support.... the key point was highlighted above, should this be something that is implemented voluntarily or should it be statutory? I have already stated my view and it's quiet obvious that Labour would not have floated this idea if they didn't believe it.
You kept a stock of all the blue smarties didn't you.
Blue smarties are crimes against nature! I'm old school- no blue smarties in 't 70's and 80's:D Mind you, I might consider stockpiling Coco-Pops if Labour have their way:D What will they come up with next? I can't wait.
Comments
It denies people the right to choose the foods that they like and are used to. 'It wouldn't do any harm' is not a valid reason to ban something. It wouldn't do any harm to ban Eastenders, it wouldn't do any harm to ban salt and vinegar crisps (soon to be vinegar crisps).
I eat a lot of processed food mainly cos I can't really cook due to disability. I do however try to balance this out by eating a lot of fresh fruit and veg and drinking mainly water. So my diet is partly choice and partly circumstance. There are plenty of low fat and low salt options available but I personally resent the meals becoming any blander than they are already. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the voluntary regulation (bullying) has actually worked. If I made the meals myself they'd probably end up more rich and salty than the ready meals, the same is true of celebrity chef recipes.
My point was that if it was added to food then its not necessarily a foodstuff in its own right.
^^^ Foodstuffs
^^^ Food additives
I remember the days when the salt in a packet of crisps came in a little paper twist, so was optional
Does anyone actually believe a bowl of Frosties causes obesity?
They had 13 wasted years in office 1997-2010 - why did they not do this then? Whether it's by voluntary or statutory means, there is a nutritional case for limiting the amount of salt, sugar and fats in processed foods especially when it comes to foods that are marketed at children and this is an area where any government needs to do better.
You can still get them, Salt n Shake. Made by Walkers though.
The difference being that there is no benefit to smoking/not wearing a seatbelt/having lead in petrol that can be mitigated through balance; and also, a level of salt and fat is a requirement of a healthy diet (minerals and fat soluable vitamins).
Foods are not challenged on the amount of salt or fat they add to the national diet, but because it is easier to point at these things as being bad without understanding a wider, more holistic view is required. Eating nothing but apples would make you ill too, just in a different way from a diet of Mars Bars and crisps
Additives may or may not be foodstuffs. Vitamin C has an E-number after all (as does the colour from carrots).
Those that have been banned (and the bans vary across the world) have been shown to be unsafe, and therefore removed. Salt and fat are required in a typical diet, so the focus must be on the whole diet and not individual foods, and on those foods that contribute the most to over consumption of the things we should try to limit (for example, salty snacks don't contribute nearly as much salt to the national diet as you think - self addition, bread, soup, cereal for example are far worse)
... er the line in the articles says:
"Labour wants to lead this debate. That is why we are asking the public and experts if new limits for sugar, fats and salts would be the right approach."
You say:
"Put legal limits on sugar, salt and fat: Labour"
Quite misleading, and therefore not worth a response.
Sugar is added to processed food to sweeten it - in that sense it is an additive, just like artificial sweeteners.
The principle of limiting harmful quantities of additives (or banning them completely in some cases) has long been accepted by society.
And as I have stated, these consultations, whether conducted by Labour or Conservative governments, nearly always end in the most illiberal option. Therefore it is quite easy to prejudge the outcome.
Many think corporate power is the strongest influence in politics. I disagree - it is politicians' egos. Tobacco is a big industry but it doesn't stop new anti-smoking laws being introduced every six months.
What policy?
I get the feeling that the idea behind that statement was something like you could even have a Big Mac and Fries, as part of a healthy diet/lifestyle, as long as you didn't eat them too often.
That could be argued about Labour policy on ANYTHING. Where is Burnham btw- has he vanished? He's not been on telly lately. I wonder why....
Maybe he is sick of some people completely misinterpreting his statements.......
Thank you for highlighting that aspect, Welsh-lad. My own view is that this matter should be informed by academic experts and published research which should then lead to recommendations for government to implement by either voluntary or statutory means.
[QUOTE=MizManiac;63392443]The new Labour policy of banning Coco-Pops and Frosties (snigger) and 'Fatty Foods' will of course go down like a barrel of cold sick in Doncaster. A seat held by a certain Ed Silliband. Where it was discovered it was the UK's fattest constituency!!! Conservative gain in 2015- Coco-Pops or Silly Milly! I wonder if 'Tony the Tiger' will stand as well:D[/QUOTE]
It's not a question of banning Coco Pops or Frosties - it is just reducing the processed sugar content of these breakfast cereals so that they are healthier to consume.
You kept a stock of all the blue smarties didn't you.
I also pointed that out at the beginning of the thread Welsh-lad but it seems no matter how many times it's said, some posters just can't understand it.
Well considering he was on Sky News yesterday I'm not sure what you're talking about.
http://news.sky.com/story/1033676/burnham-high-sugar-cereals-should-be-banned
Unless of course you want to see him on TV everyday :eek:
Hilarious. Burnham has never EVER misinterpreted (however innocently) ANY government minister has said. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Aww why so sad?
Do let us know when you've decided if a legal limit is something you'd support.... the key point was highlighted above, should this be something that is implemented voluntarily or should it be statutory? I have already stated my view and it's quiet obvious that Labour would not have floated this idea if they didn't believe it.
Blue smarties are crimes against nature! I'm old school- no blue smarties in 't 70's and 80's:D Mind you, I might consider stockpiling Coco-Pops if Labour have their way:D What will they come up with next? I can't wait.
Didd-bloody-ums. When politicians say 'let's have a debate', they've made up their minds. Cut through the spin.