National Food Strategy and Prescription Vegetables.

[rjfp1962]

Here we go again, more tax on sugar and salt and get your vegetables on prescription! I live on processed and junk food, and know it's not particularly good for me, but it is my choice.. Is it really that bad? I carry a few extra pounds in weight, but now might have to pay a few extra pounds on my food too...! Last checked, my cholesterol was fine, blood pressure slightly high. Take a daily statin and blood pressure tablet, but don't many do this no matter their diet...?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57838103

[Haltamer]

Using a tax as a stick seems like an awful way to go about it:- Subsidising fresh produce would be a much better way to increase consumption of healthier foods, and go some way to improve nutrition for those who are financially struggling anyway.

[Newc]

Set income tax and NI rates according to your BMI.


Job done.


Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

[anonymous-user]

I’m guessing that even if you subsidised healthy foods and vegetables, it still wouldn’t increase the consumption of those items by much because for many people the convenience, speed, and taste of ready meals reign supreme.

People are often too lazy or claim to be ‘too busy’ to actually make healthy meals using basic ingredients. I have also heard quite a few people saying they just enjoy ready meals, or their kids won’t eat anything but ready meals and dislike the taste of healthy foods.

I don’t really like the concept, but sometimes hitting the population in the wallet is the only way to stop them doing stuff. As an example, the astronomical rise in the price of cigarettes stopped an awful lot of people smoking (in conjunction with other measures).

We do have a serious, and rising, problem with people being overweight and generally unhealthy as a result of their diet, and there seems very little willing from the public to do anything about it of their own volition.

[JagLover]

Prescription vegetables?

Do these clowns even realise that the NHS incurs fixed costs for prescription medicines. It was costing the NHS close to £500 million to provide cheap over the counter medicines to those on free prescriptions before they changed the rules

https://www.harrogateandruraldistrictccg.nhs.uk/da...

[Sway]

Lord Marylebone said:

I’m guessing that even if you subsidised healthy foods and vegetables, it still wouldn’t increase the consumption of those items by much because for many people the convenience, speed, and taste of ready meals reign supreme.

People are often too lazy or claim to be ‘too busy’ to actually make healthy meals using basic ingredients. I have also heard quite a few people saying they just enjoy ready meals, or their kids won’t eat anything but ready meals and dislike the taste of healthy foods.

I don’t really like the concept, but sometimes hitting the population in the wallet is the only way to stop them doing stuff. As an example, the astronomical rise in the price of cigarettes stopped an awful lot of people smoking (in conjunction with other measures).

We do have a serious, and rising, problem with people being overweight and generally unhealthy as a result of their diet, and there seems very little willing from the public to do anything about it of their own volition.

Yep.

We've tried the 'carrot' (pardon the pun) for years. Healthy eating campaigns in schools, adverts, increased education, etc.

It's done little. Not surprising, when the OP themselves point out they're a daily cost to the taxpayer, yet 'it's not that bad, is it?'.

Yes, yes it is... The overall costs to society for obesity are fking massive (again, pun unintended!).

We've socially banned fat shaming, etc. (unlike many European countries I've visited or worked in) - the only possible other avenue (as disruptive and indescriminate as it is) is to start charging people.

[bazza white]

Comparing calorie for calorie cost wise is silly. 2000 kcal in mixed veg vs 2000kcal in lard is a huge diffence in volume mass.

It's not the just cost that's an issue it's that sugary foods are just so easy. A chocolate bar is standard in a lunh box. An easy 200calories that won't keep you full for long.

Edited by bazza white on Thursday 15th July 11:04

[jmn]

I think that the objective here is to persuade the food and drink industry to change the way that it manufactures some foods. So far companies have refused to do so.

Some products are laden with sugar and salt (have a look at some breakfast cereals).

I have 2 relatives that work in the NHS and they could describe in some detail the complications that obesity causes for various medical treatments/surgery, and also how diabetes is becoming more common.

[Sway]

jmn said:

I think that the objective here is to persuade the food and drink industry to change the way that it manufactures some foods. So far companies have refused to do so.

Some products are laden with sugar and salt (have a look at some breakfast cereals).

I have 2 relatives that work in the NHS and they could describe in some detail the complications that obesity causes for various medical treatments/surgery, and also how diabetes is becoming more common.

Yep. The issue of 'ultra processed foods' is immense.

As soon as manufacturers realised mixing sweet and savoury increased addictive responses - you started getting pizza with a base who's dough had more sugar than a cake.

[pquinn]

Rich fat fker with no relevant knowledge tells the poor what they should eat and makes stuff expensive so they can't afford it.

It's a bunch of stupid ideas just as you'd expect from someone who's only qualifications were owning a restaurant and knowing the right people to get a side job.

Did I mention that Henry is a rich fat fker? A nasty one at that.

[Dr Jekyll]

jmn said:

I think that the objective here is to persuade the food and drink industry to change the way that it manufactures some foods. So far companies have refused to do so.

Some products are laden with sugar and salt (have a look at some breakfast cereals).

I have 2 relatives that work in the NHS and they could describe in some detail the complications that obesity causes for various medical treatments/surgery, and also how diabetes is becoming more common.

Manufacturers have changed the content of certain foods, but customers didn't like the taste.

[pquinn]

The sugar and salt thing is a particularly stupid one - it's just a flat tax on the ingredients, not on higher levels.

Apparently owning a restaurant doesn't educate you that sugar and salt are basic ingredients and *required* for making some things.

It also doesn't seem to educate you that the problems come from *excessive* consumption and that taxing all consumption isn't a brilliant idea.

Maybe Henry would benefit from 6 months on a diet free from all sugars and salt. Not sure he'll be writing many reports after that but I'm sure his weight won't be an issue for him.

[Sway]

pquinn said:

The sugar and salt thing is a particularly stupid one - it's just a flat tax on the ingredients, not on higher levels.

Apparently owning a restaurant doesn't educate you that sugar and salt are basic ingredients and *required* for making some things.

It also doesn't seem to educate you that the problems come from *excessive* consumption and that taxing all consumption isn't a brilliant idea.

Maybe Henry would benefit from 6 months on a diet free from all sugars and salt. Not sure he'll be writing many reports after that but I'm sure his weight won't be an issue for him.

Sugar and salt are required ingredients in some things...

However, the reality is that sugar and salt are actively being used in far greater quantities, and in things where they absolutely aren't necessary - in order to increase the addictiveness of those products.

Do you believe that a Big Mac 'requires' 9g of sugar? 25% of it's total carbohydrate content. There's a further 2.3g of salt - that's a massive amount.

[HTP99]

Prescription vegetables FFS, veg is cheap and plentiful, the fact is, decent healthy, self prepared meals are cheaper to make than eating junk, but it:

1. Isn't convenient for some
2. there is a large proportion of people who lack cooking knowledge
3. there is a large proportion of generally lazy people
4. many people don't have the time or would rather spend their time doing something else, me I enjoy cooking so am happy to do it, I actually use it to relax

prescribe veg and they won't all of a sudden want to start cooking wholesome and healthy home made meals

Many kids have been brought up on crap that is sugar and salt laden so they have a taste for it, food that is healthy, they just don't like the taste of it.

I read an interesting report a few years ago about kids that were fussy or didn't like certain foods, it went into the then and I think also current practice of advising to not wean children onto solid food until at least 6m old, whereas in my kids day they were weaned at 3m, it was to do with taste buds not being fully developed at 3m old but far more developed at 6m, the issue being if you start introducing foods with strong or bitter flavours, such as green veg, at 6m old the child can strongly dislike the instant flavour or bitterness, whereas at from 3m old the flavour comes gradually over the next few months as the taste buds develop and by the time they can fully taste it they have developed to like it or at least not find it strongly vile in flavour or taste.

And as for kids not liking water to drink, well they aren't born disliking water, it is because they have been given sugary drinks from a young age.

[Dr Jekyll]

Sway said:

Sugar and salt are required ingredients in some things...

However, the reality is that sugar and salt are actively being used in far greater quantities, and in things where they absolutely aren't necessary - in order to increase the addictiveness of those products.

Do you believe that a Big Mac 'requires' 9g of sugar? 25% of it's total carbohydrate content. There's a further 2.3g of salt - that's a massive amount.

.

The sugar and salt isn't there it 'increase addictiveness', it's to make it taste better. People do have a choice, which is why calorie consumption per head has been falling for decades. Not that 9g of sugar, 40 calories, makes much difference to the calorie content of a Big Mac.

[grumbledoak]

You can ignore this salt and sugar tax crap stuff. Not going to happen, and won't matter if they do.

The big dietary changes are going to come from the UN "Sustainability" Agendas, EAT Lancet Planetary Health diet, the Rockefeller Reset the Table, etc.

You will be vegan, but you will be happy according to YouGov polls.

[pquinn]

Sway said:

Sugar and salt are required ingredients in some things...

However, the reality is that sugar and salt are actively being used in far greater quantities, and in things where they absolutely aren't necessary - in order to increase the addictiveness of those products.

Do you believe that a Big Mac 'requires' 9g of sugar? 25% of it's total carbohydrate content. There's a further 2.3g of salt - that's a massive amount.

Food products aren't formulated to be addictive. That's a bullst term campaigners drag in because it makes people think about smoking and drugs when they're talking about stuff people just like the taste of.

As for those sugar and salt numbers - do you know why they're included and in which part? And are they actually massive? What percentage of your RDA would a Big Mac be. And does it matter if you aren't eating them for every meal?

Anyway enjoy your plain gruel.

[pquinn]

Just trying to work out from their posts if someone is a fatty, an ex-fatty, a vegan, a joyless or some combination of those.

[Sway]

pquinn said:

Sway said:

Sugar and salt are required ingredients in some things...

However, the reality is that sugar and salt are actively being used in far greater quantities, and in things where they absolutely aren't necessary - in order to increase the addictiveness of those products.

Do you believe that a Big Mac 'requires' 9g of sugar? 25% of it's total carbohydrate content. There's a further 2.3g of salt - that's a massive amount.

Food products aren't formulated to be addictive. That's a bullst term campaigners drag in because it makes people think about smoking and drugs when they're talking about stuff people just like the taste of.

As for those sugar and salt numbers - do you know why they're included and in which part? And are they actually massive? What percentage of your RDA would a Big Mac be. And does it matter if you aren't eating them for every meal?

Anyway enjoy your plain gruel.

There's a difference between 'taste good' and 'trigger reward mechanisms'...

I don't know why they're included - hence my question to you. I can't see any reason why there'd be two teaspoons of sugar in a burger.

The issue isn't solely Big Macs - it's prevalent across whole swathes of products.

Oh, and I'm quite OK thanks - 3k calories a day, lots of exercise and 71kg at 5'10.

[pquinn]

Sway said:

I don't know why they're included - hence my question to you. I can't see any reason why there'd be two teaspoons of sugar in a burger.

The bread, the sauce, and for a few reasons to do with cooking the beef in the burger. None of which are to do with sweetness. Similar spread for the salt.