Lots of coverage in today's newspapers - Daily Mail, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent - about a speech that Andrew Lansley will be giving later this morning about combating obesity. The main ideas he'll be floating are summarised in the graphic below:
In previous remarks on obesity Mr Lansley has also commended a national research centre on obesity and ring-fenced public health budgets so that we cannot carry on seeing such budgets being raided to meet national health service deficits.
The Shadow Health Secretary will tell the think tank Reform that the Conservative approach will be "no nannying AND no excuses":
"We must not constantly talk about tackling obesity and warning people about the negative consequences of obesity. Instead we must be positive - positive about the fun and benefits to be had from healthy living, trying to get rid of people's excuses for being obese by tackling the issue in a positive way."
Oh dear, the do-gooders are at it again. Who will appoint the people who serve on these quangos and how much will these dictators be paid?
Just tell people to use their common sense and stop wasting more of OUR money Mr. Lansley.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | August 27, 2008 at 07:55
Obesity is a massive problem and these are all small responses. The same pattern can be seen across the Tory manifesto. Whether the economy or terror or family breakdown we are asked to believe that a little "nudging" will be enough. I don't think so.
Posted by: Nudgets | August 27, 2008 at 08:01
What about "eat less"?
Posted by: YourNameHere | August 27, 2008 at 09:06
Proportionate regulation on small businesses to get involved in our adult staff overeating and underexercising lifestyle choices!
Oh my, here we go. More regulation, more rules, more nannying, more cost, who trains the small business owners to provide advice? Who protects us against litigation if we suggest something that damages someone's back. Andrew please keep us out of it, they are not children that we employ.
Politicians want businesses to create better work life balance for staff but when we do and they don't use this time as you thought they would, why is it then our responsibility to sort it out?
Posted by: a-tracy | August 27, 2008 at 09:18
It used to be fashionable to pillory smokers because of the extra costs they impose on the NHS but the target has switched to the obese.
The curious thing is the sharp rise in recent years in alcohol related deaths and sickness in Britain but we mustn't damage the commercial interests of the brewers and distillers or the value to the Exchequer of the tax revenues:
"The alcohol-related death rate in the UK continued to increase in 2006, rising from 12.9 deaths per 100,000 population in 2005 to 13.4 in 2006. Rates almost doubled from 6.9 per 100,000 in 1991. The number of alcohol-related deaths more than doubled from 4,144 in 1991 to 8,758 in 2006."
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091
For comparison, there are about 3,300 fatalities a year from traffic accidents in Britain and readers will doubtless be aware of how much advertising and investment in road improvements goes into reducing traffic accidents.
According to this study, alcohol is a significant factor in crime, especially violent crime:
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/crime.pdf
Posted by: Bob B | August 27, 2008 at 09:29
I think the above menu is wrong. I would be extremely surprised if Tories advocated stronger controls on food advertising. It goes against everything they have said publicly and believe.
More likely they will encourage CSR from food companies and harness the positive power of advertising to "nudge" consumers in the right direction.
They are in favour of persuasion rather than compulsion.
Posted by: kung | August 27, 2008 at 09:33
why not tax fat people more? They are more expensive to look after on the NHS, weigh more on airplanes, therefore burning more fuel. Hitting people where it hurts (in the pocket) is usually a good deterrant and might start making people think about losing some of that excess weight!
Posted by: Chris | August 27, 2008 at 09:35
It is absurd to ask for a voluntary reduction in portion sizes. The UK is a rip-off country for food and if I ask for a luncheon meat fritter and a large bag of chips with scraps I don't need to order twice just because of some stupid voluntary code to protect me from my own fatty desires.
No doubt this will be launched at a reception with ample canapes.
Get out of my life you hypocritical interfering muppets.
Posted by: anon | August 27, 2008 at 09:41
Oh dear, Chris, why not concentrate a little more on your spelling and grammar before marginalising fat people?
As to Mr Lansley, why doesn't he behave like a conservative and leave people to live their own lives providing they harm no one else in the process?
Posted by: John Coles | August 27, 2008 at 09:44
"As to Mr Lansley, why doesn't he behave like a conservative and leave people to live their own lives providing they harm no one else in the process?"
But it's claimed that obesity imposes additional costs on the NHS - as do alcohol and drug abuse.
Posted by: Bob B | August 27, 2008 at 09:58
It shows how much Andrew Lansley et al have been brainwashed by new labour over the last 11 years. There is now a majority consensus that people are simply the human livestock of the state. The various health commisars are the state's stock keepers and are demanding the authority to order us about.
The point about being a Conservative is that the State is answerable to the people, not vice versa.
Posted by: Alexander Lovatt | August 27, 2008 at 09:58
Make fatties join the army.
Posted by: Simon's a Heffer | August 27, 2008 at 10:01
To all those people obsessed with the cost to the NHS, who cares?
If you're stupid enough to provide a free for all health service funded by mandatory taxation and punitive taxation on 'undesirable' lifestyle choices, then you can pay for my liver to be washed out once in a while.
The question is not the fatsos, it's the NHS imposing a nanny state.
Posted by: anon | August 27, 2008 at 10:04
Cut the sizes of portions and Ill just buy more portions. I gotta eat...
Role models? I find it off putting when the sportsperson of the moment is sprawled over the "good" campaigns. It actually puts me off. I put money Rebecca Adlington and Chris Hoy are the next ones on the merry go round of such campaigns.
This does all seem rather modest if the problem is so great. A lot of this weve seen and heard before from Labour.
Posted by: James maskell | August 27, 2008 at 10:07
Bob B
"..But it's claimed that obesity imposes additional costs on the NHS - as do alcohol and drug abuse..."
So leave off smokers (subject to safeguards for non-smokers), because they pay much more tax than they cost the nation.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 27, 2008 at 10:15
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN
Posted by: Treacle | August 27, 2008 at 10:17
Andrew Lansley's list is state interference to achieve nothing as usual.
What happened to calls for school playing fields; competitive sports? did we not learn from our Olympic success that most came from private sector?
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | August 27, 2008 at 10:23
It would be unfortunate if we all sat back, though, and watched the young start their lives without some idea of the perils that face them, particularly if they lack information at home. I can`t think it wrong to tackle this problem at school level, if nowhere else, and advise people at their most impressionable age, what the benefits are of following sensible dietary habits.
Posted by: john parkes | August 27, 2008 at 10:29
The Unilever boss chairs the committee on selling fewer of his products? Of course he wants to get rid of the traffic lights. Who wants a big red traffic light on the front of their packaging?
Posted by: passing leftie | August 27, 2008 at 10:33
Wait a sec. Dave Lewis is the current UK Chairman for Unilever? Isnt this a pretty large conflict of interests? Surely the Tories should be using someone who isnt currently running a business with a direct financial interest in the results of such an inquiry?
Posted by: James Maskell | August 27, 2008 at 10:41
This speech reflects Lansley's desire to be Secretary of State for Public Health. He is not interested in reforming the NHS and wants to pass the buck to an independent board.
Why should there be EU enforce rules of labelling?
A code on portion sizes is ridiculous. That will not affect what or how much people eat at home. You cannot stop people ordering large take away pizzas or curries.
Olympic athletes eat huge portions that would make the rest of us fat. Olympic athletes, e.g. Lynford Christie and Dwaine Chambers, are not always role models.
Yet again, Lansley shows that he is more interested in being nanny. He is not fit for purpose or office.
Posted by: Libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 10:42
Get out of our lives, skinny, leave us fatties alone.
Posted by: Wiliam George Bunteer | August 27, 2008 at 10:58
Get out of our lives, skinny, leave us fatties alone.
Posted by: Wiliam George Bunteer | August 27, 2008 at 11:05
as someone who has had to fight fat since (miserable) teenage years; I completely agree that these days there are no excuses for ignorance regarding obesity.
however, as any serious weight watcher will affirm, labelling items "healthy" or "low fat" can be misleading; just as not all fruit and vegetables will help you to lose weight.
there is one very simple equation which works every time. burn off your calorie intake with exercise and you will lose weight. End of.
Posted by: Jane Gould | August 27, 2008 at 11:11
Ken Stevens:
"So leave off smokers (subject to safeguards for non-smokers), because they pay much more tax than they cost the nation."
Exactly. Smokers not only make a regular substantial regular annual contribution to Exchequer revenues, they also tend to die younger than non-smokers and so collect less in state pensions.
Indeed, the net contribution of smokers to the Exchequer was so munificent that when Harold Macmillan was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he resisted a proposal in Cabinet for public information campaigns telling the public of the link between cancer and smoking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7427001.stm
Posted by: Bob B | August 27, 2008 at 11:15
I think that the biggest worry for me is that parents who cannot afford to opt for private education are losing control of their children and their future opportunities. The child gets fed in at an early age into the state system, educated on subjects and with a slant of the state's choice, subjected to social mores dictated by the state and then provided with an education that by most Western economies is profundly sub-standard.
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with action to reduce obesity amongst children, I am fundamentally nervous of state intervention as it will no doubt have some other ulterior motive. Moreover, there are probably more parents who need to lose weight than children. It starts at home.
Posted by: Mark Hudson | August 27, 2008 at 11:17
Andrew Lovatt 09:58:
Very well put, this Govt does seem to regard the population as something to be shoe-horned into policy-constraints. But that there is spin on policy uses.
I like the idea of mandatory labelling of fat, salt etc because being of the larger persuasion, I try to keep limits on those things and I find it very difficult to make informed choices. By not labelling, food-sellers are depriving me of my choice to eat as healthily as I would wish. Promoting sports , no problem, especially in schools. Would like to see more community-based sports and clubs. But compulsion no, denial of NHS resources, no.
Posted by: snegchui | August 27, 2008 at 11:21
"But it's claimed that obesity imposes additional costs on the NHS - as do alcohol and drug abuse."
Then make them pay extra.
My philosophy is let them eat, let them get fat. Then let them pay for the consequences.
We do not need more finger-wagging and regulation. This will just irritate fat people who don't appreciate being nagged at.
Posted by: RichardJ | August 27, 2008 at 11:21
Andrew Lansley clearly knows little about the causes of obesity. Suffice to say that the subject is more complicated than he and other like-minded people's prejudices would allow them to admit. I can only assume that the spin on his policy is an attempt to attract the "hang'em-shoot'em -flog'em" brigade, who have mostly migrated to the UKIP.
I would suggest to Mr Lansley and his fans that they obtain a medical dictionary and settle down with, "The Psychology of Eating" by Jane Ogden,(Blackwell) and "Eating Disorders and Obesity", by Christopher G Fairburn and Kelly D Brownell.(Gulford).
Given time, they might realise that obese adults and children who eat to make themselves so ugly that they will not be sexually abused would find his ideas terrifying, and a super-fit athlete an intensely negative role-model.
Posted by: grumpy old man | August 27, 2008 at 11:22
"I like the idea of mandatory labelling of fat, salt etc because being of the larger persuasion, I try to keep limits on those things and I find it very difficult to make informed choices."
That people find making choices difficult should not be used as an excuse to run in and start regulating. I had some trouble deciding what new digital camera to buy the other day, I didn't consider asking the government to rate them all. There's nothing to stop an entrepreneur setting up a website or magazine providing ratings for all sorts of food.
"By not labelling, food-sellers are depriving me of my choice to eat as healthily as I would wish."
The problem is that your desire for choice impinges upon their freedom to do what they wish with their money and materials. Whereas their choice on how to label their packaging does not force you to do anything.
Posted by: RichardJ | August 27, 2008 at 11:25
What we have missed here, is that morbid obesity is another name for Food Addiction.
Suger is as addictive a substance as tobacco, but this is never mentioned or even recognised.
If we as a party want to help solve the obesity crisis, as well as funding psychological help, and I guess some sort of "drying out" as is afforded to alcoholics, actual legislation may have to be imposed on food companies to BAN them from adding sucrose to practically every product. I am including "glucose syrup" "malted barley" "malto-dextrin"
Bisto is a mega offenda. Suger in its gravy mixes, cheese sauces --- no wonder we were healthier in WW2.
I had a heated discussion with a cereal company re the amount of suger they ladled into their product. and was firmly informed that if they did not put it in them selves, people would spoon far too much suger on to their cornflakes! We have Nanny manufacturers here folks!! The cynical truth is that they know damn well that suger IS very addictive, and they need to start their victims early.
Its a prime reason why the tally of folk developing type 2 diabetes is rising. Over a million all ready. I dont have the precise figure to hand, but doubtless some commenter will provide it for me.
Addiction is probably more a reason than gluttony.
But hey, what government will take on the big boys such as Kellogs?? They are American anyway arnt they? What size are Americans these days? Do remind me!!!!!!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | August 27, 2008 at 11:26
grumpy old man
"..obese adults and children who eat to make themselves so ugly that they will not be sexually abused ..."
One of the exceptions that proves the rule, along with those unfortunates suffering from medical conditions that give rise to obesity
--- but these sad categories are in the minority and should not divert attention from those for whom obesity is an avoidable state.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | August 27, 2008 at 11:34
Bit uninspiring. The labelling of food with sugar and salt percentages does seem to me a good idea although why it has to be EU wide escapes me.The British government should just do as it pleases in such matters.
I have nothing against 'nannying' if it works, sadly in most types of government action it doesn't.
I get the impression that some on this board think of Obesity as a bit joke. I think they truly underestimate the cost to the country of its effects.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | August 27, 2008 at 11:36
UKIPPERS, grumpy old man, will not approve Mr. Lansley`s utterings. Socialists and LibDems yes.
Dieting, books and newspaper articles on it are just a waste of time. Only way is to eat and drink what you like, in reasonable amounts, No amount of persuasion from well-meaning politicians of whatever colour will make any difference.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | August 27, 2008 at 11:37
grumpy old man wrote "I can only assume that the spin on his policy is an attempt to attract the "hang'em-shoot'em -flog'em" brigade, who have mostly migrated to the UKIP."
You are ignorant and well as grumpy and therefore at home in Dave's authortarian Tory Party. UKIP, under Nigel Farage's leadership, is a libertarian party, as demonstrated by its new slogan "freedom to choose". See http://www.ukip.org.
UKIP's candidates at next year's European Elections will include at least 3 members of Young Independence. Michael Heaver, a Young Independence member, won a place on Question Time.
Faced with a choice of Grumpy old statist Tories or Young freedom-loving UKIP, I picked the latter!
Posted by: libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 11:44
Some people are fat due to medical conditions,some people are fat due to poverty.
When we make healthy food as cheap as it is to buy a McDonalds then people may be able to afford to have a choice ,until that day we have to look at each case individualy
Posted by: G K Hickton | August 27, 2008 at 11:47
Annabel Herriott (11:26 ): while you're busy banning things to solve a 'crisis', have you ever thought that it isn't the state's job to 'solve the obesity crisis' at all?
And as for Bisto, if you insist on putting such a vile product on your food rather than making real gravy, surely the answer is to not use Bisto, not to ban it?
Posted by: anon | August 27, 2008 at 11:51
GK Hickton, McDonald's does sell cheap healthy food as well hamburgers. There is less fat in a McDonald's burger than a sandwich from Pret a Manger. A lot of people of are fat because they believe the leftist propaganda aimed at McDonald's and eat fashionable fat rubbish instead.
Posted by: Libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 11:53
Adapt Swift's "Modest Proposal" for modern times and use dead fatties as biofuel? Lots of energy stored in that fat and it's not fossil carbon like coal or oil.
;-)
Posted by: brian | August 27, 2008 at 12:30
G K Hickson, nobody is fat due to being poor. Being fat is largely down to lifestyle choices.
I am against a tax on fatty foods as this would penalise the many healthy people who exercise and eat their five a day, but enjoy the occaisonal pizza or burger. I.e me.
I do think that fat people should be charged more to use NHS services, or sent to the bottom of the list for new organs. What is the point of giving an obese person a new kidney or heart when its going to be equally knackered in two years time anyway?
Only about 2% of obesity cases are caused by 'genes' or 'glandular problems' the other 98% are caused by people eating too much junk and not exercising enough. If people were penalised in a way that hurt them financially or health wise, they may be shocked enough into spending their weekly lard allowance on an exercise bike.
Posted by: John | August 27, 2008 at 12:43
"UKIP, under Nigel Farage's leadership, is a libertarian party, as demonstrated by its new slogan "freedom to choose"."
How many of UKIP's leading members are supporters of the Libertarian Alliance? Where are their policies to privatise social security, NHS and education? Or to legalise all drugs and handgun ownership? Or to repeal all anti-discrimination legislation?
Posted by: RichardJ | August 27, 2008 at 12:59
The government taxes hydrocarbon fuels to reduce consumption and promote development of more fuel efficient vehicle engines and it taxes tobacco products and alcoholic drinks to curb consumption because both can lead to health problems and additional costs for the NHS.
If obesity is caused by eating too much food, why not tax food sold in the shops which is presently rated zero for VAT purposes?
If the concern is the regressive effect such a tax, the proceeds could be applied to raising the tax threshold for income tax, tax allowances for married couples and child benefit.
Posted by: Bob B | August 27, 2008 at 12:59
Whilst I don't mind a little gentle exhortation and objective public education, I strongly object to the argument that just because there is an NHS the State is thereby licenced to try to control everything that might affect people's health (to be fair I don't think AL is saying that). That way lies an insidious form of near-totalitarianism. It turns the NHS into a trojan horse invading our freedom.
I am dubious about reducing portion size, particularly if the details are to be worked out by a committee headed by a food manufacturer. Will there be mandatory price control with it to ensure the prices are reduced proportionately? If many then buy two portions, what does that do to the cost per unit for poor people or the environmental impact of the extra packaging? It might have been better to have put someone in charge involved in selling natural "ingredients" than selling ready meals. Teaching healthy cooking in schools would be a good idea too.
Posted by: Londoner | August 27, 2008 at 13:17
Annabel is quite right to raise the subject of food addiction and I am sorry to see so many unkind posts on here stating that if only "fatties" would "eat less" or "join the army" they would magically become slim and therefore "acceptable"! It is not as simple as that.
True it is not rocket science to say surplus calories in + deficit calories expended = overweight - just about every over (or under!) weight person is only too well aware of that.
The problem is that many people in today's fast-paced and stressful society are "comfort eaters" who self-medicate their stress, aggression, unhappiness and anger through food. I know this only too well as it is something that I have been prone to myself all my life. Some of you may know that I lost a great deal of weight (several stones) through the Lighter Life programme a couple of years ago and I have managed to keep most of it off! I am well aware that when I become stressed or unhappy I reach for the chocolate bar or biscuit tin and I have now been equipped with the knowledge and understanding to cope with "blips" when they occur and to limit them. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have learned coping strategies and if someone is morbidly obese they are going to feel terrible about themselves and very low - hardly in a state to do something about their condition!
For such people it would be far better if we could work on their self-esteem instead of stigmatising them!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 13:20
Lansley's comments on the role of the EU in this sum up what we could expect from a Conservative administration - more pathetic surrender.
Posted by: David | August 27, 2008 at 13:45
'Fathead' overwritten??
A valid comment I thought considering the knee jerk nature of Mr Lansley's proposals and the vehemence of some of the other posts here.
First time I have been overwritten and I am amazed that it should be for this!
So I will try again.
Knee-jerk twaddle. A proposal typical of meddling, nannying and wet so-called Tories.
That ok?
Posted by: Treacle | August 27, 2008 at 13:47
If only everyone were as vain and shallow as I then they would not allow themselves to get fat. It is no concern of mine if others choose to be obese. What does concern me is the attempt by a conservative - a conservative! politician to manipulate the cost and supply of food in order to coerce people into becoming thinner (presumably at the same time trying to prevent impressionable children from developing anorexia or bulimia). If the conservative party cannot or will not get it into its collective head that people's lifestyle choices within the law are absolutely none of its business I shall be taking my vote elsewhere.
Posted by: narcissa | August 27, 2008 at 13:57
Interesting. Postings to date on this site 46. On "Cameron on Cameron",12 including 3 from Charles Tannock MEP.
Have we got our priorities wrong?
Posted by: Edward Huxley | August 27, 2008 at 14:00
Richard J wrote "How many of UKIP's leading members are supporters of the Libertarian Alliance?"
I don't know because such memberships are not registered or made public. Several of the leading Libertarian Alliance members are UKIP members or declared supporters, e.g. Perry de Havilland of Samizdata. Tim Worstall will be standing for UKIP in London in the European elections.
I am not a LA member because it has promoted policies that are too extreme, e.g. legalising drunk-driving.
Posted by: Libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 14:10
"Interesting. Postings to date on this site 46. On "Cameron on Cameron",12 including 3 from Charles Tannock MEP.
Have we got our priorities wrong?"
I think you have. I read this thread thinking it was about obesity but now it seems to have become a foreign affairs discussion -I am frankly puzzled.
Posted by: Aurora Borealis | August 27, 2008 at 14:59
Conservatives do not ban things.
Posted by: London Tory | August 27, 2008 at 15:02
This is absolutely nothing to do with Government and Lansley's speech is yet another nail in the coffin of a proper Conservative agenda based around proper conservative principles such as a small and non intrusive state and individuals taking responsibility for their own lives.
At a time when what we and the electorate want and need to be hearing from our party about detailed economic, crime, tax and defence matters, not to mention a proper position on the EU, this is exactly the kind of absolute bollocks that makes ordinary people wonder where the hell the Conservatives actually are.
HEY CAMEROONIES - BUTT OUT OF THINGS THAT DONT'T CONCERN YOU!!!
Posted by: I've Had Enough of this Rubbish | August 27, 2008 at 15:12
"This is absolutely nothing to do with Government and Lansley's speech is yet another nail in the coffin of a proper Conservative agenda based around proper conservative principles such as a small and non intrusive state and individuals taking responsibility for their own lives."
Actually it's got everything to do with individuals taking responsibility for their own lives - read what Andrew Lansley says again - maybe more slowly this time?
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 15:31
Shhhhh...is that the former kings and great leaders of britain turning in there graves that i hear,this stuff is priceless and totally barmy,god help us.
Posted by: Gnosis | August 27, 2008 at 16:04
Sally wrote - "Actually it's got everything to do with individuals taking responsibility for their own lives".
That's not true. Mr Lansley is seeking more European regulation and controls on food advertising - the state taking control of our lives and businesses.
His local campaigns would require local councils to spend more of our our money telling us what to eat and where to spend it. That is local nanny statism, not localism or personal responsibility.
Blue Labour Blue Danger!
Posted by: Libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 16:09
"That's not true. Mr Lansley is seeking more European regulation and controls on food advertising - the state taking control of our lives and businesses."
He's talking about food labelling - a standardized system across Europe - something I personally and many others would find extremely helpful! He's also talking about regulating food advertising - so people are not constantly bombarded with messages to go out and eat junk food! Again something which many would find helpful. He is not "telling" people to do things in the negative way that you imply but positively promoting a healthy way of living. If children and adults can be persuaded that fruit and vegetables actually taste nice and that it is quite fun to go out and play football or swim some lengths, then surely that has got to be a good thing?
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 16:30
This is all curious. There will be no public restrictions, but at the same time no "excuses", whatever this means, for being obese.
So the nudging agenda becomes prurient moralising for those who do act against the public interest, but the small-state solution [sic] of not doing anything to either stop those acts happening in the first place nor any intervention to solve the effects once it happens.
The libertarian agenda seems to be to hope against hope that a bit of tsking and all the problems will solve themselves. It is no agenda for government.
Posted by: WHS | August 27, 2008 at 17:06
Sally, it's very quaint of you to admit to wanting to eat blocks of lard based on an advert for a block of lard but common sense and personal responsibility must have a role to play. I think the Sony adverts are really good and they play all the time yet I haven't bought a Sony product in years.
Also, every other week there's a new health scare about something - vitamin B6, beef on the bone, the colour of apples - you name it. So should this standardised labelling be applied to all remotely 'scary' foods? Should it apply to carbohydrates given that many people think it is carbs not fat that make people fat?
Finally, would you apply this to restaurant menus leading branches of McDonalds everywhere to be brimming with chatter of 'I really didn't think the triple bacon cheesburger with fries would be worse for you than the celery sticks'?
Posted by: anon | August 27, 2008 at 17:27
Sally Roberts wrote "He's also talking about regulating food advertising - so people are not constantly bombarded with messages to go out and eat junk food! Again something which many would find helpful."
Bombarded with junk food ads? Please give examples of such advertising. There is plenty of advertising for "healthier" foods. To my eyes and ears, they are far more numerous than ads for McDonalds. You will find more fat in Pret a Manger sandwich than a McDonalds burger!
So why is banning or regulating advertising specific types or brands helpful? Whatever happened to free enterprise, free markets and freedom of choice? You never hear of them from Cameron and his nanny statists. Blue Labour! Blue Danger!
Posted by: Libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 17:36
"Bombarded with junk food ads? Please give examples of such advertising."
McDonalds, Old El Paso Fajitas, Smarties, Fanta soft drinks.... There's a few examples!
As for your comparison between McDonalds and Pret a Manger, well it very much depends what you have! You could have a chicken and avocado sandwich which would contain quite a lot of fat or you could have a salad which would contain none!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 17:44
Mr Huxley appears not to understand the emotive nature of food as nutrition/food as love/food as a weapon.
That is why there are so many comments on this thread, and also why it is so very difficult for a food addict to overcome their addiction. Comfort eating is another name for food addiction by the way.
Actually, good PARENTING programmes would help to avoid food addiction. In some families, if you dont clear your plate, you obviously dont love the cook!! ie your MOTHER!!!! Think about it!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | August 27, 2008 at 17:47
"Sally, it's very quaint of you to admit to wanting to eat blocks of lard based on an advert for a block of lard"
Sorry? I am genuinely puzzled by this comment as I have no desire whatsoever to consume lumps of lard! Would you like to explain what gave you this idea?
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 17:48
" In some families, if you dont clear your plate, you obviously dont love the cook!! ie your MOTHER!!!! Think about it!"
If you come from a Jewish, Greek or Italian background you'll definitely relate to this!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 17:50
"McDonalds, Old El Paso Fajitas, Smarties, Fanta soft drinks.... There's a few examples!"
There are healthy options at McDonalds. There are diet Fanta options to choose. Smarties have been around for decades, long before the health fascists attacked them. I have never heard an obese person claim that they binge on Fajitas.
Sally is one of those paternalistic Tory snobs who look down on the personal choices of the ordinary public.
Posted by: Libertarian | August 27, 2008 at 17:51
Libertarian if you choose to call me a snob that's entirely up to you! I wouldn't agree and neither would those who know me in the real world. You are quite right to say that McDonalds has healthy options and that is exactly the point I was making - it very much depends what you choose! They too have salads and fresh fruit. They also have Big Macs, fries and milk shakes and no I am not too much of snob to say that I would never choose those - I just don't choose to eat them virtually all the time.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 17:54
"I have never heard an obese person claim that they binge on Fajitas."
an obese person who suffers from bulimia or binge-eating disorder (which is where you eat to excess but do not get rid of the food afterwards) will binge on anything they can get their hands on - which may or may not include fajitas! Bulimics will eat whole loaves of bread, whole trifles, whole packets of cereal or whole tins of custard. It is an appalling illness and one which you might do well to educate yourself about.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 17:59
There are so many of these waddling fatties around now.
And what a cost to the taxpayer - although it is their right in a free country.
But,
It makes you want to kick them into the hollybush so they go pop.
Posted by: West London Tory | August 27, 2008 at 18:16
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN
Posted by: HF | August 27, 2008 at 18:19
"There are so many of these waddling fatties around now.
And what a cost to the taxpayer - although it is their right in a free country.
But,
It makes you want to kick them into the hollybush so they go pop."
West London Tory - I very much hope you are NOT someone I know in "real life" as I would really like to kick you into a hollybush for coming out with something so unkind and unsympathetic!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 18:38
"Lansley continues his stupidity by appointing the Unilever man who does not pass the smell test."
HF I bet you didn't know that Unilever are manufacturers of Flora and of Slim Fast as well as of Walls Ice Cream! They don't just produce fattening foods.
That's going to be my last contribution on the subject - I have had quite enough and am going off to make supper - and since you ask (not) its some delicious salmon, some cherry tomatoes, carrots and corn on the cob.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 27, 2008 at 18:41
Gove, Yeo, Goldsmith, Lansley.
There really is NO difference between the Labour Government authoritarian nannies and the Conservative Opposition authoritarian nannies.
STOP MEDDLING IN OUR PERSONAL LIVES - ALL OF YOU!
Posted by: Jim Carr | August 27, 2008 at 19:03
Jim Carr - NO.
You think it is the individual's right to eat what they want. But that has an impact on the NHS, which must care for you when the arteries are clogged and the stomach bursting with Smarties and McDonalds. And it has an impact on you when you are waddling about under the impact on those goodies.
The state in the true Tory viewpoint exists to rescue people from the consequences of their own actions, and quite right that a Tory might propose the state stop these consequences before they even happen.
Posted by: WHS | August 27, 2008 at 19:09
I don't like the underlying 'nudge' nonsense that the Man in Whitehall knows better than you what you should eat.
If there's any "nudge" value it should be in highlighting the fact that fat people are B>ugly and deeply un-sexy. Of course in the Politically Correct new-labour world this will never happen because it would hurt the feelings of the flabby lard-arses and they'd all start demanding that the NHS provided counselling services to treat them for their emotional trauma.
Posted by: Tanuki | August 27, 2008 at 19:21
WHS - ignoring the fatuousness of much of your comment, I don't give a damn what the impact is on the grossly overfunded and mismanaged NHS. Let them do the job they are overpaid for.
There IS fat to be lost, the fat that exists in the overstaffed and overstuffed quangocracies of the NHS.
Posted by: Jim Carr | August 27, 2008 at 19:27
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN
Posted by: Anon | August 27, 2008 at 20:11
Jim Carr - I don't see what is fatuous about my comment and I am insulted by the insinuation.
If you decide on this UKIP-type "freedom" and libertarianism in the truest sense and set your face against "Government" per se, in a quixotic fashion defying everything "authority" says is good for you, and then stuff your face just to show "authority" your life is your own - it is ridiculous to then say the NHS owes it to you to pump your stomach and save you from yourself.
In the interim, it would be well if the state, to which we pay taxes to carry out the functions of society which we individually cannot carry out, to do things like have effective restrictions against obesity, rather than the canard of Andrew Lansley wagging his finger and hoping it'll all turn out for the best.
Posted by: WHS | August 27, 2008 at 20:30
For Conservative Party read Labour Party Clones--I fear if the same kind of dictatorship and Stasi tactics contiue in the Conservative Party as in Labour many votes will go down the drain--perhaps to B.N.P.---come on Conservative Party buck up your ideas and give the public back our freedom--freedom to do what we want within our within our
families,too much telling us what to eat etc.to much control in general, we are after all your employers,we fund your wages,also
expenses and holidays--it's about time we were treated as employers and not surfs. From a Conservative supporter for over sixty years.
Posted by: Rob Baker | August 27, 2008 at 20:38
Reasons to be Obese Pt. 1
1) Increasingly sedentary life style
2) The increasing time taken to commute to work and therefore less time to exercise
3) Lack of proper sporting activity in schools
4) Proliferation and success of fast food outlets as people no longer have time / can't be bothered to cook for themselves.
5) Proliferation of ready made meals.
6) Increasing lack of choice (i.e. it's all Supermarkets)
Is Lansley doing anything about these. Er no?
As for:
A voluntary food industry code that would see a reduction in portion sizes
1) You can guarantee that the industries will not reduce prices. Lansley therefore favours steatlh inflation.
2) It's voluntary is it? Who for - not the electorate. Do you know any company that wouldn't screw an extra bit of profit out of people if it had Government backing?
He denies nannying but forces people to accept smaller portions and presumably less value for money. Give me a break.
Health policy is still the weakest link and Lansley better not be there should the Conservatives enter Government. It will be a disaster.
What we need is some role models for politicians and then the likes of Lansley perhaps would not produce such facile vacuous proposals. On the other hand he will probably still would he seems like a Nu Labour dinosaur from 1997.
This really is dire!
Posted by: John Leonard | August 27, 2008 at 21:40
Use of Role Models, including Heroes from the Olympics
So the taxpayer will have to shell out for posters and TV ads all over the place whilst the same role models images are also emblazoned all over high sugar cereals, soft drinks and so forth.
And positive peer pressure to promote healthy living
And you know what answer those 'peers' will get too don't you?
Lansley must be about the only fool in the country who still believes Labour's spin and tractor figures........
I'm starting to wonder if there is any worth in having a Government whatever colour!
Posted by: John Leonard | August 27, 2008 at 21:54
mandatory EU-wide food labelling… Giving more power to the EU to interfere? Surprising suggestion from a Conservative.
I’m not saying I agree with an insurance-based provision of health care for everyone, but perhaps if we all did have to pay health insurance, the insurance companies’ setting of premiums to take account of risks as a result of our own choices, such as smoking, and being overweight through diet, would surely be a far better way of influencing behaviour than lectures (either positive or negative) by the Big Nanny State. A free NHS at the point of need is good as it means care isn’t based on ability to pay premiums etc, but the downside is we can do what we like and not care for our health as the State will always be there to pay if we suffer any consequences.
While a case can be made for laws on smoking, as passive smoking can pose a risk to those who choose not to smoke, telling us what to eat and what exercise etc to have is not a job for Government. If charitable/voluntary or private sectors want to campaign for healthier lifestyles, that’s good. For children’s diets, what about the responsibility of parents?
Posted by: Philip | August 27, 2008 at 22:20
"But,
It makes you want to kick them into the hollybush so they go pop."
Best comment of the thread!
"Sorry? I am genuinely puzzled by this comment as I have no desire whatsoever to consume lumps of lard! Would you like to explain what gave you this idea?"
He was mocking this comment of yours:
"He's also talking about regulating food advertising - so people are not constantly bombarded with messages to go out and eat junk food!"
The point being that only a complete imbecile would go out and eat junk food because an advert told them to. In fact I've never actually seen an advert tell people to eat food, it just tells people how nice the food supposedly is. Then the viewer can CHOOSE ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL whether to eat or lot. Anybody who lacks such free will is either a)still in nappies or b)belongs in a secure institution.
Posted by: RichardJ | August 28, 2008 at 02:04
"In fact I've never actually seen an advert tell people to eat food, it just tells people how nice the food supposedly is."
Never heard of subliminal messaging, Richard J?
To come back to this thread and find that the level of debate has plummeted further is very sad but not entirely unexpected! It seems to be the same contributors that are crawling over practically every thread on Con Home at the moment and I very much hope that when Tim returns from his holiday some order might be restored! It is boring to read the insults towards elected representatives (Lansley and Tannock) and the childish, idiotic comments. Frankly I don't care what you have to say to me but it really does lower the tone of what started off as a very interesting discussion.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 28, 2008 at 08:25
"Never heard of subliminal messaging, Richard J?"
Yes, doesn't seem to have worked on me though because I've never ever bought anything based on a commercial. Even when I was young I based my Xmas list on the Argos catalogue or the contents of toy shops rather than tv commercials, posters etc.
Posted by: RichardJ | August 28, 2008 at 12:22
'Knee-jerk twaddle. A proposal typical of meddling, nannying and wet so-called Tories.
That ok?'
Posted by: Treacle
Seems fine to me.
Posted by: Dave | August 29, 2008 at 11:18
'The state in the true Tory viewpoint exists to rescue people from the consequences of their own actions, and quite right that a Tory might propose the state stop these consequences before they even happen.'
Posted by: WHS
I disagree about this. I don't think that the state exists to 'rescue people from the consequences of their own actions'.
It exists to defend the realm, to maintain law and order and to efficiently administer such services as the electorate have seen fit to support.
The state does not exist to moralise about the seven deadly sins.
That's why most Tories will dislike Lansley moaning about people eating too many pies or Gove complaining that young men like looking at naked ladies.
If they want to tell people how to live their lives, they should join the church, not the front bench.
Posted by: Dave | August 29, 2008 at 11:49
"That's why most Tories will dislike Lansley moaning about people eating too many pies or Gove complaining that young men like looking at naked ladies."
The point is, Dave, that both these examples have repercussions for society in general. In the case of Gove's stance against top-shelf magazines - well this is a debate which has been going on for years (remember Mary Whitehouse?) and something where I take a liberal view - as far as adults are concerned! I have often said that I don't care what consenting adults do so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses (to paraphrase Mrs Patrick Campbell) - but children and young people can be and are influenced. As far as Mr Lansley and the pies are concerned - there is a public health angle and that is that the NHS has to pick up the tab to treat the pie eaters for coronary heart disease and strokes to name but two conditions directly resulting from obesity. He is quite rightly trying to encourage the population to eat more fruit and vegetables and take more exercise. I believe he is right to do so.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 29, 2008 at 13:04
'As far as Mr Lansley and the pies are concerned - there is a public health angle and that is that the NHS has to pick up the tab to treat the pie eaters for coronary heart disease and strokes to name but two conditions directly resulting from obesity.'
As far as the NHS/public purse argument goes, fatties and smokers dying young is a good thing. They pay tax throughout their working lives then considerately die before becoming economically useless pensioners.
But the other thing I don't like about this moralising is that it is so twisted.
Being fat is nothing to be ashamed of, and yet nannying politicians want people to be ashamed anyway.
Meanwhile, actions which are genuinely immoral, such as abortions which are so late term that the baby could theoretically survive outside the womb, are supposedly all fine and dandy.
The truth is, politicians no longer seem to understand the difference between morality and political correctness (which is why Gove condemned soft porn in heterorsexual magazines but not in gay ones).
Posted by: Dave | August 29, 2008 at 14:06
It is fair enough to blame the rise in obesity partly on the people who are obese. Certainly if you are unemployed and obese you have no one to blame but yourself, but for those in work the increased sedentry lifestyle caused by sitting at a PC all day has certainly contributed and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. I propose that employers take some responsibility for this, be it installing desks that can be used standing up, to installing several showers and cycling facilities to charging for parking (or reducing parking spaces) for anyone who lives in the same town as they work. If this can be incentivised or regulated then I think that would start to have some effect on obesety.
Posted by: voreas | August 30, 2008 at 08:41
Good idea Voreas and I'd go a bit further - how about getting a yoga or aerobics teacher to come into the office at lunchtime -there is always a spare meeting room which can be used - and have classes which people can be encouraged (not told!) to come to. I am not sure I'd go as far as the Japanese who have the whole company gathered for exercise before the day starts but then we have a different culture completely here!
Companies could also encourage their workforce to train for and enter sponsored runs, walks or cycles and then money could be raised for charity this way too!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 31, 2008 at 08:11
Sally read this: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article4620115.ece
aren't you concerned that so much control at the hands of a minority would lead us back to this sort of behaviour control. Don't be so ready to give up our individual freedoms to choose.
First stop them smoking at work to control their behaviour and isolate a group. Dismiss them if they break the rules this engenders control for other suggestions to come.
Then give them exercise regimes in controlled environments with employers unpaid controllers and enforcers. You would then marginalise another group of unfit, inactive people.
Next provide membership cards in the form of id cards, which can be removed if you don't the rules.
and on...and on...
Posted by: a-tracy | August 31, 2008 at 11:10
a-tracy - I think you're reading too much into it!! No one is suggesting the draconian methods you claim. Conservatives are not the same as Labour who force unhappy little bands of smokers out into the rain like pariahs! We simply want to provide some encouragement and a way out of the depression and despair that being obese can cause - and to improve the general health and fitness of the population.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 31, 2008 at 11:53
Sally, as a Conservative you may not be of this mind, but there are plenty who are, individual freedom means by definition that each individual has the right to choose the way they live, so what right does it give you to suggest a yoga class in my lunch break to me? One person's freedom is another person's restriction, one person's heaven is another's idea of hell.
I know a man, he's a slow learner, he'd worked for the same company since leaving school at 16, he started on an apprenticeship and has a useful skill in one industry sector. His ability and committment to the job were never questioned in twenty years. However, now he is unemployed and has been for six months because he a fellow employee reported him for smoking in a none designated area (it was his second and final warning for doing something he'd done on his break for two decades) when it was pouring down one day - I'm a none smoker and exercise every day in my own time but I don't try and enforce my personal disciplines onto other people and I'm concerned that you don't feel these small encroachments are a slippery slope to mass control.
Andrew Lansley suggested light changes to legislation on small businesses these small changes are building up. Don't let your staff have calendars; don't let your staff send ageist or joking cards to colleagues; ensure they don't offend each other at works parties or you as an employer can be sued.
Posted by: a-tracy | August 31, 2008 at 12:10
"so what right does it give you to suggest a yoga class in my lunch break to me?"
Every right - just as you have every right to say "No thank you I do not want to do yoga"!
It is only a suggestion - not a compulsion.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | August 31, 2008 at 16:37
This is a general problem in the population of america Debed to poor feeding and food quality, as are the famous fast food and sedentary clear. Ojala Sensitize on this issue and our habits moderemos discipline.
Posted by: hydroxycut | April 29, 2010 at 23:14