Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:00 pm  

Standee wrote:

Business can only sell to a market (be it value burgers, "rubbish" coffe or interest only mortgages, 0% interest credit cards, pay day loans), I don't blame the provider, I blame the consumer.

Business creates markets and products all the time, both consumer and producer are equally to blame.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:05 pm  

Standee wrote:

Rock God X wrote:

more free help should be available to those who need it.

such as?

NHS funded one to one nutritional advice, subsidised/free gym memberships/swimming/classes, regular free contact with a 'weight loss practitioner'. It might be costly, but I reckon it'll be significantly cheaper than the alternative.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:05 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Business creates markets and products all the time, both consumer and producer are equally to blame.

Business exploits markets, nobody ever forced anyone to buy anything.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:09 pm  

Standee wrote:

Big Graeme wrote:

Business creates markets and products all the time, both consumer and producer are equally to blame.

Business exploits markets, nobody ever forced anyone to buy anything.

Perhaps not, but if you think you're buying a healthy thing (because it is marketed as such) when you're buying the opposite, that's an issue with the producer rather than the consumer.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:11 pm  

Standee wrote:

Business exploits markets, nobody ever forced anyone to buy anything.

That doesn't absolve the producers.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:13 pm  

Rock God X wrote: NHS funded one to one nutritional advice ... I had that years ago. I was told to diet to 800kcals per day, on the basis that my family GP believed that I should be below 9st – and I was always hovering just over – and the amount of lean tissue I was carrying, and my fitness, were as irrelevant to him as the knowledge that I was already dieting to 1,000 kcals per day (which I only realised later was part of the damned problem). The establishment, if you will, is still a real problem in terms of diet advice and help. And increasingly, here as in the US, corporate 'sponsorships' are meaning that it's increasingly unlikely that we are being given properly independent advice. ADD in the States is absolutely up to its eyeballs in corporate links. Over here, we're seeing the likes of the British Heart Foundation linking up with Unilever/Flora – and indeed, their materials promote foods that will be full of sugar (low-fat yogurts) along with highly processed food (Flora etc) over natural, unprocessed foods. As I've illustrated before, government moves to involve the industry in public health is simply meaning surreptitious free advertising for big manufacturers. Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS.

Rock God X wrote: NHS funded one to one nutritional advice ... I had that years ago. I was told to diet to 800kcals per day, on the basis that my family GP believed that I should be below 9st – and I was always hovering just over – and the amount of lean tissue I was carrying, and my fitness, were as irrelevant to him as the knowledge that I was already dieting to 1,000 kcals per day (which I only realised later was part of the damned problem). The establishment, if you will, is still a real problem in terms of diet advice and help. And increasingly, here as in the US, corporate 'sponsorships' are meaning that it's increasingly unlikely that we are being given properly independent advice. ADD in the States is absolutely up to its eyeballs in corporate links. Over here, we're seeing the likes of the British Heart Foundation linking up with Unilever/Flora – and indeed, their materials promote foods that will be full of sugar (low-fat yogurts) along with highly processed food (Flora etc) over natural, unprocessed foods. As I've illustrated before, government moves to involve the industry in public health is simply meaning surreptitious free advertising for big manufacturers. Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS.

[Kosh]

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:15 pm  

Standee wrote:

Business exploits markets, nobody ever forced anyone to buy anything.

Business also creates markets. All sorts of businesses, all of the time.

While I agree that nobody is ever forced to buy anything, there is a reason why billions are spent on marketing.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:24 pm  

Mintball wrote: Rock God X wrote: NHS funded one to one nutritional advice ... I had that years ago. I was told to diet to 800kcals per day, on the basis that my family GP believed that I should be below 9st – and I was always hovering just over – and the amount of lean tissue I was carrying, and my fitness, were as irrelevant to him as the knowledge that I was already dieting to 1,000 kcals per day (which I only realised later was part of the damned problem). The establishment, if you will, is still a real problem in terms of diet advice and help. And increasingly, here as in the US, corporate 'sponsorships' are meaning that it's increasingly unlikely that we are being given properly independent advice. ADD in the States is absolutely up to its eyeballs in corporate links. Over here, we're seeing the likes of the British Heart Foundation linking up with Unilever/Flora – and indeed, their materials promote foods that will be full of sugar (low-fat yogurts) along with highly processed food (Flora etc) over natural, unprocessed foods. As I've illustrated before, government moves to involve the industry in public health is simply meaning surreptitious free advertising for big manufacturers. Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS. I did say NHS funded, not NHS delivered. I once had a practice nurse tell me I was overweight because my BMI is just under 27. I pointed out to her that I was carrying only 11% body fat, to which she mumbled something about me 'still needing to lose a bit of weight'. But this is the problem: GPs and nurses aren't necessarily the best trained people to be dispensing fitness/nutritional advice. The same could be said of many in the fitness industry - there are loads of idiots working in gyms who don't know the first thing about healthy eating and exercise. Some of the advice I've seen dispensed is scary. All that said, there are a number of hugely competent people out there who could make a real difference if the will (and funding) was there. The challenge, as with any such project, would be finding the correct people.

Mintball wrote: Rock God X wrote: NHS funded one to one nutritional advice ... I had that years ago. I was told to diet to 800kcals per day, on the basis that my family GP believed that I should be below 9st – and I was always hovering just over – and the amount of lean tissue I was carrying, and my fitness, were as irrelevant to him as the knowledge that I was already dieting to 1,000 kcals per day (which I only realised later was part of the damned problem). The establishment, if you will, is still a real problem in terms of diet advice and help. And increasingly, here as in the US, corporate 'sponsorships' are meaning that it's increasingly unlikely that we are being given properly independent advice. ADD in the States is absolutely up to its eyeballs in corporate links. Over here, we're seeing the likes of the British Heart Foundation linking up with Unilever/Flora – and indeed, their materials promote foods that will be full of sugar (low-fat yogurts) along with highly processed food (Flora etc) over natural, unprocessed foods. As I've illustrated before, government moves to involve the industry in public health is simply meaning surreptitious free advertising for big manufacturers. Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS. I did say NHS funded, not NHS delivered. I once had a practice nurse tell me I was overweight because my BMI is just under 27. I pointed out to her that I was carrying only 11% body fat, to which she mumbled something about me 'still needing to lose a bit of weight'. But this is the problem: GPs and nurses aren't necessarily the best trained people to be dispensing fitness/nutritional advice. The same could be said of many in the fitness industry - there are loads of idiots working in gyms who don't know the first thing about healthy eating and exercise. Some of the advice I've seen dispensed is scary. All that said, there are a number of hugely competent people out there who could make a real difference if the will (and funding) was there. The challenge, as with any such project, would be finding the correct people.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:21 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

I did say NHS funded, not NHS delivered. I once had a practice nurse tell me I was overweight because my BMI is just under 27. I pointed out to her that I was carrying only 11% body fat, to which she mumbled something about me 'still needing to lose a bit of weight'. But this is the problem: GPs and nurses aren't necessarily the best trained people to be dispensing fitness/nutritional advice.

The same could be said of many in the fitness industry - there are loads of idiots working in gyms who don't know the first thing about healthy eating and exercise. Some of the advice I've seen dispensed is scary.

All that said, there are a number of hugely competent people out there who could make a real difference if the will (and funding) was there. The challenge, as with any such project, would be finding the correct people.

TBH, personally, these days I'd be loathe to easily trust anyone on the issue.

Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre shows the mess in the pharmaceutical industry, with conflicts of interest etc, and I personally think that it's very similar in food.

For instance, in 2003, the WHO published a report on nutrition, which recommended that sugar should form no more than 10% of a healthy diet. Result? Massive lobbying by the sugar industry against the recommendation, to which the WHO responded by including, in the report, the statement "The Consultation recognized that a population goal for free sugars of less than 10% of total energy is controversial". That's the WHO, FFS, bullied by big business.

Until a couple of years ago, when I started reading more deeply, I didn't like supermarkets etc, but I still thought them essentially benign – or at least certainly not companies that would do anything that was clearly detrimental to the populations' health. That opinion has changed the more I've read – and it's similar with all other aspects of big food.

I think it's easier for such companies here and in the US. There is, as Standee and I have touched on in this thread, an attitude that is remarkably widespread of food simply as fuel. I'd suggest that, if you really enjoy your food, you don't eat junk. But we have a vast disconnect with food culture/heritage and it makes it lot easier, then, for companies to exploit the consumer.

And in many cases, even the more interested consumer will find it difficult to be able shop for food away from the supermarket aisles.

For various reasons, this week, in the daytime, I've had more processed food than I normally would in a whole month. Not massively processed, but still ready salads, for instance. And it's become almost an experiment – even knowing what I know, I've been grimacing at the general awfulness of it. And if you have that as your standard, then it's not really going to encourage you to change from that food-as-fuel attitude.

Anyway, those are just a few rambling notes. I may try to add more later.

Re: Sugar Tax : Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:31 pm  

'Food as fuel' isn't necessarily a bad attitude to have. I mean, if you want your nice new shiny car to run properly and last a decent amount of time, you don't fill the tank with used chip fat. Food IS fuel - it's just that some people make poor choices as to what that fuel should consist of.