Johnson to ban supermarket promotions of unhealthy food - The Times

[snoop1130]

Johnson to ban supermarket promotions of unhealthy food - The Times

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves Downing Street, in London, Britain, July 8, 2020. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

 

(Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to take his first steps to tackle obesity in Britain with a ban this month on supermarket promotions of unhealthy food, The Times reported on Friday.

 

Shops will be prevented from offering buy one, get one free deals on targeted products, the report said.

 

A ban is also expected on sweets and chocolates promoted at the end of supermarket aisles and entrances, the report said, adding that No 10 was also considering reviving plans for compulsory calorie counts on restaurant and takeaway menus.

 

The United Kingdom has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world: nearly one in three adults are obese, according to the OECD.

 

Worldwide, obesity has nearly tripled since 1975 and more than 650 million people are obese - defined by the World Health Organization as having a Body Mass Index of 30 or greater.

 

Last month, Boris Johnson said he was determined to tackle obesity in Britain to better prepare the country for future health crisis.

 

Johnson, who said at the start of the year that he needed to lose weight, was hospitalised in April with coronavirus and treated in intensive care with oxygen.

 

He later said doctors in the National Health Service (NHS) had saved his life.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-07-10

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Mavideol]

2 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to take his first steps to tackle obesity in Britain

 

3 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Johnson, who said at the start of the year that he needed to lose weight,

he sure looks a little overweight, needs to work out

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, snoop1130 said:

Johnson, who said at the start of the year that he needed to lose weight

Here’s how you can do that, johnson  Do you have the will power...

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/

[phantomfiddler]

Next step.....apply this to all of Pattaya,s dancing girls ????

[stevenl]

While I agree with the principle goal of this, this is not the right way to achieve.

[RuamRudy]

This is one of these issues that arises regularly in the press where, inevitably a task-force is proposed by the government, push-back received from the supermarkets and eventually things go on as always. It will be interesting to see whether Johnson can do any better than his predecessors, although I am not convinced that this is anything other than a diversionary tactic - let's talk about fat kids and forget about fat cats.  

[Rookiescot]

Physician heal thyself. 

[brommers]

Just another flailing idea from a man who has little idea of what the real world is like. The first thing he should do is learn to use condoms and stop procreating in this overpopulated world.

[robblok]

Not sure where i stand, its good that more healthy food is eaten. On the other hand I don't like nanny states. 

 

But he looks a bit flabby himself, maybe he should practice what he preaches first. 

 

Why don't they make healthy food cheaper. 

[jvs]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

While I agree with the principle goal of this, this is not the right way to achieve.

It is a first step,not so easy to force the super markets .

What do you think are better ways?

I think reducing the amount of sugar in foods would be a good step,just .5% per year.

There should be a law against lobbying first maybe?

 

[Kadilo]

He must have a “not so fat” mate opening a healthy food chain soon that he has his finger in. 
 

 

[digger70]

20 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Johnson to ban supermarket promotions of unhealthy food

Here we go Again . 

Is't him or his GF.

 It doesn't matter anyway it's a Stupid Idea and Power Trip to ban promotions /advertising for good or Bad food .

Some God Food maybe bad for some and some bad food maybe good for some.

It's  a  Peoples choice what they Buy /Eat  or they are Fat/Ugly or Both. 

Sometimes they can't help that . They are Born to be Fat/Ugly.

[hotandsticky]

13 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

He must have a “not so fat” mate opening a healthy food chain soon that he has his finger in. 
 

 

 

 

Yes, good idea, that would certainly be a smart move.

[George Aylesham]

Presumably this ban will cover hormoned beef and bleach washed chickens?

[PETERTHEEATER]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Physician heal thyself. 

Wasn't  there a movie 'Carrie on Boris'?.......????

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, jvs said:

It is a first step,not so easy to force the super markets .

What do you think are better ways?

I think reducing the amount of sugar in foods would be a good step,just .5% per year.

There should be a law against lobbying first maybe?

 

I'm not a policymaker, so can't answer your question. For the moment I am in agreement with rib, the goal is good, but more steps in the direction of a nanny state it not good.

[phetchy]

If Johnson & Johnson's products are banned at the behest of Mrs Johnson, it looks like young Urko Johnson is going to be deprived of much of the powderised and liquidised infant <deleted> supplements that I recall.

 

     

Edited July 11, 2020 by phetchy

[johng]

21 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The United Kingdom has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world: nearly one in three adults are obese, according to the OECD.

Maybe that account for much of the WuFlu statistics ???

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, jvs said:

It is a first step,not so easy to force the super markets .

What do you think are better ways?

I think reducing the amount of sugar in foods would be a good step,just .5% per year.

There should be a law against lobbying first maybe?

 

There should be ZERO added sugar in food.

If Boris thinks he can solve the obesity crisis by meddling in the supermarkets he might be proving that Corona addled his brain.

Anyway, as all processed food is, IMO, bad for human consumption, perhaps he should just ban supermarkets and go back to fresh food from greengrocers, fishmongers and butchers, etc.

When I grew up fat kids were pretty rare- look at lifestyle for the answer, not supermarkets. Compulsory sport at school would be a good start and ban all food from outside in favour of healthy food provided by schools and small portions too.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, johng said:

Maybe that account for much of the WuFlu statistics ???

I said weeks ago that IMO America has a high death rate because they are eat such unhealthy food- same goes for the UK.

[phetchy]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 America has a high death rate because they are eat such unhealthy food- same goes for the UK.

And both countries unfortunately are having to suffer the fourth one too. (The one that is unfortunate enough to have all 3).  

 

[impulse]

Calculate what added sugar costs the NHS each year, and tax added sugar by that amount, plus a little nuisance fee. Similar to what they do with tobacco and alcohol products.

 

That's the problem with so many issues.  The true societal cost of a particular habit are hidden in other budget lines.  Sure, you get cheaper ice cream, but then you pay on the backside with higher costs to treat obesity and its effects.

[elliss]

Quote

   

 The plan is ,

for the  new world unemployed,  thx Covid panic  too be denied , factory produced food products.

   Monsanto , wont be too happy .

   Their , chlorine chickens , spicey flavoured quick meals,  feeds the Worlds monkeys..

      

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by elliss

[Bkk Brian]

damned if you do, damned if you don't............a politicians curse. In my opinion its a positive step, one of many that need taking but in the right direction.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

damned if you do, damned if you don't............a politicians curse. In my opinion its a positive step, one of many that need taking but in the right direction.

So your answer is to make the nanny state even bigger. Not for me. I prefer people to make their own choices, and if it's to become an obese person so be it. However there should be consequences along the lines of no life saving procedures to be carried out in NHS hospitals for obese people. If they want knee replacements etc because they wore out the originals have to pay to get them from a private hospital. I don't see why nurses should have to suffer because patients have no self control over their eating habits.

Edited July 11, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Bkk Brian]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So your answer is to make the nanny state even bigger. Not for me. I prefer people to make their own choices, and if it's to become an obese person so be it. However there should be consequences along the lines of no life saving procedures to be carried out in NHS hospitals for obese people. If they want knee replacements etc because they wore out the originals have to pay to get them from a private hospital. I don't see why nurses should have to suffer because patients have no self control over their eating habits.

Nanny state? 

 

My answer is for those in charge to give out good advice on health that is backed by science and this was one step in the right direction. Similar to advising people not to drink bleach. or the banning of Arsenic-Laced Chicken, for that particular delicacy you'll need to travel to the US.

 

If a ban on supermarkets promotions of unhealthy foods helps then great. Nanny state or no nanny state

 

Or go down the route of tackling the problem when its already too late with your suggestion of denying life saving treatments in NHS hospitals for obese people which make up 28% of all people in England at the moment, or deny them knee replacements as you also suggested. 

 

I'll stick with the Nanny state thanks

Edited July 11, 2020 by Bkk Brian

[Dumbastheycome]

IMO this is a comedy topic.

Ban promotion of "supermarket  unhealthy food" ?

So the same  crud purchased  and  distributed  through smaller retail outlets and  either purchased   by  said  retailer  or supplied  by a subsidiary  distributor that also  bulk supplies  supermarkets  is  less unhealthy?

What is  healthy  or unhealthy food ?  Who determines  what is  either?   If a food is  unhealthy why is it available at all?

The  truth is  that there is  not  much food  that as a composite of the diet of those in the  "civilized world" if  not everywhere that is not over a lifetime incrementaly fluckin poisonous! 

The  chemical contamination of near  all food sources to some degree is  now inevitable due to the contrived dependence from the  ground upwards on chemicals and adulteration of nutrient sources focused on  marketability ahead of safe  nutritional value.

Putting  legislative  limits on the acceptable content of a consequential dangerous substance in a measured quantity of a singular food item does  not  limit the actual combined  consumption  overall in a diet that  contains multiples  of same dangerous substance in a  variety of   foods .

The  consumer has been  long conned to believe that the world has a  food  shortage.

The truth is  that the  wealthy world  has distorted the "control" of   food  and then  wastes a disgustingly large percentage of it .

The  sad  fact is that those  who stay poor  feed  the rich while they apply  the poisons that even they  must  eat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So your answer is to make the nanny state even bigger. Not for me. I prefer people to make their own choices, and if it's to become an obese person so be it. However there should be consequences along the lines of no life saving procedures to be carried out in NHS hospitals for obese people. If they want knee replacements etc because they wore out the originals have to pay to get them from a private hospital. I don't see why nurses should have to suffer because patients have no self control over their eating habits.

IMO you have a degree of  obsession  with  obesity.  I agree  obesity  is  a  genuine health  factor  in many  places  and a phenomenon  in itself. But  in  health  terms it is not more significant  than other and  combined  incremental health anomalies that  many  health  professionals would place concern as to  cause other than  excessive eating.

Obesity may or  may not be so easily  and  singularly attributable to  excesses  in diet rather than other  combined factors which  make it inevitable because of a chemical additive disruption in metabolism.

In the purchase of medicinal compounds there is now the obligatory information  sheet  listing  details of  use purposes and all known/recorded  possible  side  effects.

When you  buy a  cabbage, a lettuce, a potato do you  get same  advisory  information about  the  various  chemicals that  brought it ( supposedly)  in sufficient  pristine condition to your attention  enough  to  decide it  is  safe to  eat? When you  buy  chicken, pork, beef do you  get a  declaration that it  does  or  does  not  contain  contaminants  and/if it does  what  consequences   for  health  they  may have?

 

 

 

 

 

[Roadman]

16 hours ago, robblok said:

Not sure where i stand, its good that more healthy food is eaten. On the other hand I don't like nanny states. 

 

But he looks a bit flabby himself, maybe he should practice what he preaches first. 

 

Why don't they make healthy food cheaper. 

How? The problem is that the bad food has two dirt cheap components...sugar and fat. You don't like nanny state so again the nanny state would have to intervene by applying heavy subsidy on fruit and vegetables out of your taxpayer pocket. 

What would help is get rid of the stupidity of being so bloody PC like all people including obese people are beautiful. Here is NZ they have photos of the health outcomes of smoking on the smoke packets. For example rotten teeth, cancer ridden lungs etc. Do the same with obesity with photos of the horrific outcomes of obesity on food labels and packaging of junk food.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nanny state? 

 

My answer is for those in charge to give out good advice on health that is backed by science and this was one step in the right direction. Similar to advising people not to drink bleach. or the banning of Arsenic-Laced Chicken, for that particular delicacy you'll need to travel to the US.

 

If a ban on supermarkets promotions of unhealthy foods helps then great. Nanny state or no nanny state

 

Or go down the route of tackling the problem when its already too late with your suggestion of denying life saving treatments in NHS hospitals for obese people which make up 28% of all people in England at the moment, or deny them knee replacements as you also suggested. 

 

I'll stick with the Nanny state thanks

I never said they couldn't get life saving treatment or knee replacements- I said they shouldn't get them on the taxpayer. By all means pay for them themselves.

Nurses should have the right to refuse to physically help obese people and get ruined backs. As a retired nurse I'm happy that obese people have to be lifted by a crane now.

Obesity is caused by gluttony and eating bad food and nothing to do with medical conditions, despite what fat people say. Don't want to get fat- don't eat so much and do more physical activity. Hardly rocket science.