You couldn't make this up.

It is unbelievable, the only good what could come from this is they my be persuaded to start looking at their own products and make them more healthy by reducing the big three (sugar, fat and salt) but it is beyond belief that they are so heavily involved and we will be the laughing stock of the world.

Nigel

I think this is something that we can ALL agree on. It's a sick joke.

Maybe people should give them a chance and see what they bring to the table. Some people need to realise kfc McDonald etc.. can all be enjoyed as part of a normal diet. Its people who eat it in excess that are the problem. There is enough of a nanny state already. Im glad they are coming in on it to give there side of the view.

Yes. Saw this one the other day.

This is really bad for me.......for once.....I have to agree with Patch ! :shock:

As for seeing what they can bring to the table........I know it 'aint going to be healthy ! I eat KFC sometimes.....once in a while OK, but definitely not good for me. I'm a sadist sometimes.... :wink:

For a huge number of people,The government's Healthy Eating Plate and America's FDA's Food Pyramid are not so good either, so maybe we'll be better off :shock:
Hana

catherinecherub said:

If anyone is interested, there is a programme on tonight, Panorama on BBC1 at 8.30.pm called "TAX THE FAT".
It asks if the UK should tax high fat junk food to cut obesity rates?
It goes to Denmark where they have already implemented this tax and also travels to the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_ ... 176897.stm

Click to expand...

I'll be watching this............thanks Catherine!

Nigel

From someone who works in this area I really do not think it will make a bit of difference. I cannot see how it would work in practice - will watch tonight and then maybe pass judgement!

In Wales we removed all the unhealthy snacks out of school vending machines so the kids went to the shop instead - I personally feel it is gimic.

Money would be better spent on some of the great schemes that are being ditched across the Uk where great work has been done tackling the problem withn communities.

I worked on a great project a few years ago in a valley community - we had cooking clubs for kids, growing veg in school, food coops selling local meat, eggs and fruit /veg , walking groups etc.
It was pulled a few years ago when it was really showing some promising results. More energy would be better spent continuing things like this.!

Ally

well just watched it and it did not really give any details but the emphasis was definately on high fat/sugar junk - that is where the problem is we all know that!

Watching what some of the people on there ate really just mirrored what I have said here time and time again - fat does make a difference because it is the junk fat! It is what I see day in day out!

One of the points made was about exercise and wt loss - that is exercise does not seem to help but part of the problem is that being in active all day is not good either - I do tend to people watch and so many people do not walk briskly!

I was at a conference on Friday where some data was presented about kids and their lack of fitness - the exercise did not appear to be aiding wt loss but was improving physical and heart fitness.

We have a long way to go!

I agree with you Ally, I watched it too. My problem with all this is it is just another step towards the Nanny State (no offence Catherine ) If you tax something because it is bad for SOME people where do you stop ? Why should the rest of us have to pay more for the odd treat just because somobody cannot say NO to themselves and do without the junk. I was in a shop the other day and calmly walked past the seried rows of Choccies and Cakes.......I looked at them, thought that would be nice but just kept on walking.......willpower, something some people need to have more of. They have the willpower to eat the stuff........

My view is educate them at School.....start them on a path to better understanding what they are doing to their bodies. Get Parents to reinforce that at home, instead of pandering to little Tommy or Sarah screaming because they can't have chips ! They will eat what's put in front of them if they are hungry........I wish I had known what I know now when I was younger. Might have saved me some grief over the years.

I still think it is just another Tax collecting stunt.......rip us all off instead of the ones that have a problem, then claim it is for our health. If I wasn't a Monitor I would say spherical objects, but I am, so I wont ! :wink:

I thought about this thread when I was reading a piece of British research. It was looking at replacing sat fat with monounsaturated fat, low gi carbs and hi gi carbs and subsequent effects on insulin sensitivity and CVD risk. It was a well conducted trial , well documented at each stage. As well as advice,the researchers supplied the key components of the diet, it wasn't completely left to the subjects to follow a diet sheet as in so many trials. This food was provided by Unilever, Cereal partners, Weetabix and Sainsburys. It included specially formulated fats and starches of appropriate GI. Without this supply of food the trial would have been less well controlled. (how they manipulated the food intake here
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/8/1 ... l.pdf+html
The interests statement also makes clear that several of the researchers (though not all) have held positions as consultants to major food companies and some sit on government advisory panels alongside members of the food industry.

Though it would be better to have no industry funding, removing it would probably result in smaller trials or no trials at all so there would be no evidence at all giving the food companies free rein. Most of the big multinationals have interests in a variety of foodstuffs so they are probably in a position to switch emphasis anyway, whichever way the direction of dietary research turns.

( incidently the conclusion of the trial was 'This study did not support the hypothesis that isoenergetic replacement of SFAs with MUFAs or carbohydrates has a favorable effect on Si.(insulin sensitivity) Lowering GI enhanced reductions in TC and LDL-cholesterol concentrations in subjects, with tentative evidence of improvements in Si in the LF-treatment group'
http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/4/748.full

I wouldn't just tax the food I'd also tax (or ban!) the advertising, promotion and sponsorship that is used to brain-wash chidren and suggestible adults into believing this stuff has any value at all. They have been given every chance to improve and have failed on food quality and environmental issues.

As for the Nanny State - an overused political, point scoring cliche - we all live in (an overpopulated) society and without controls the whole thing would fall to pieces very quickly. Some of us might well need to give up the occasional treat in order to further the benefit of the wider population. Many soldiers and civilians have, and still are, giving up much more to protect what we have.

Oh - by the way I only ever had three healthy meals when I was younger - very few snacks or sweets, I've never been overweight and always fit - now Type 2 - so stop the generalisations...

I'm sorry but I just can't see a tax working, unless you make a Mars bar £5 each people will still buy them. So a tax increase of 10 or even 20% will make no difference what so ever except to the government coffers of course.

They said several times in that program the other night that the tax increases on tobacco worked but I just don't accept that either, the ban on smoking in public places has certainly helped but all the tax hikes did was to increase the importation of 'duty frees' so many smokers are now effectively off the radar.

A modest increase in tax will do nothing to deter those with a addiction to junk/convenience food. I work with a fella who chain smokes and coughs his guts up all day, despite being hospitalised last year for 2 months and nearly losing his legs due to circulation problems he will not pack in the fags, his consultant said the circulation problems was due to him being a life-long smoker and strongly advised him to stop, ignoring his advice he would wheel himself outside the hospital doors for a quick smoke. :roll:

I've asked him many times to see sense and quit for the good of his wife and family, but he insists it is one of life's enjoyments and even if they were £10 a packet he would find the money to smoke! :?


Nigel

witan said:

I wouldn't just tax the food I'd also tax (or ban!) the advertising, promotion and sponsorship that is used to brain-wash chidren and suggestible adults into believing this stuff has any value at all. They have been given every chance to improve and have failed on food quality and environmental issues.

As for the Nanny State - an overused political, point scoring cliche - we all live in (an overpopulated) society and without controls the whole thing would fall to pieces very quickly. Some of us might well need to give up the occasional treat in order to further the benefit of the wider population. Many soldiers and civilians have, and still are, giving up much more to protect what we have.

Oh - by the way I only ever had three healthy meals when I was younger - very few snacks or sweets, I've never been overweight and always fit - now Type 2 - so stop the generalisations...

Click to expand...

Ban it.....Tax it.........yeah right ! That's not the answer to all lifes ills. Punish the rest of us for the failings of a few.

Nanny State isnt a cliche.......firstly I used it a joke to Catherine who has just become a Granny .
Secondly it was used in the pejorative sense referring to economic and State intervention in our lives. The State needs to keep its nose out of our lives ! We don't need a Government to protect us from the consequences of all the actions we take surely......we can make our own choices without their intervention.

Smacks of 1984........or the Communist ideal which is China......tell people how many children they can have........ :shock:

Sorry, I have a brain and know how to use it.......banning and taxing is just for building up the Revenue balance in my view........ :wink:

Actually, the worst food in America isn't totally American. PF Changs, the Chinese food chain, has single meals with over 6,000 mg. of sodium. IHOP has Mex/American breakfasts with over 300 gms. of carbohydrate. :shock:

Cugila makes my point clearly, society is made up of an 'infinite' combination of individuals, some with 'brains that know how to use them' others with instincts they can not control and every variation in between. But for the good of society the 'nanny' state has to prescribe controls and balances irrespective of the brain power of any individual in that society.

Of course the 'nanny' state prescribes that children should not purchase alcohol or drugs - you wouldn't argue against that for the protection of our society, or for speed limits outside schools, this restriicts your right to drive at whatever speed you choose, but you know it makes sense to protect our children, so when subjected to brain washing marketing and peer pressure shouldn't we pass laws to protect our children from themselves, be it a tax or advertising ban?

Witan.
Of course controls have to in place for some of the things you mentioned, it would be folly not to !
That is not at issue here. This is all about taxing people for their choices on the pretext of protecting us all. What it is about is more revenue to the Govt of the day. They know that people will still purchase whatever they tax because that is what people want, they enjoy certain things. They could have banned Alcohol and Tobacco long ago if they really cared about our health. They never will because it is too big a money spinner.........

I don't see why anybody who fancies a can of Coke, a Pint of Beer, a bottle of Whisky, a McDonalds, a Cigar etc should be taxed more because of the actions of a few, however intelligent or not as the case may be. They have choices, the brainwashing would be from those who seek to impose even tighter controls on us as individuals.

I don't consider Advertising......brainwashing. Peer pressure is a fact of life, it shapes the individual, something our children have to learn to live with. Most manage to cope very well, I don't think all of todays children are unintelligent and unable to think for themselves.

Life is full of risks and hazards.....it's about time we left people to find out what is right and wrong without the nanny state turning to brainwashing of it's own. Why should they be able to dictate what I drink, smoke, eat etc all because some have no willpower, no morals, no intelligence.........they have a choice.......

I think we are both going to have to agree to differ on this one as it could run and run........I respect your view, just do not agree with it. Nice talking to you.

BTW, you don't live in China do you........ :wink: