Public Health England recommends calorie limits for food sold at restaurants, supermarkets, etc

TubeMapCentral · 27 Dec 2018

I do wish that prople would stop making the claim that these draconian state interventions are somehow necessary to save the NHS. They won't save it (and related care services) a penny.

We are all going to die, and when we do, for most of us it will cost the NHS a fortune. At best, you are just trading the cost of managing diabetes with the cost of managing cancer. Getting old is unhealthy, and there is no way for controlling that varable. Take out the other contributors and you will just magnify its effects.

RailUK Forums

Intermodal · 27 Dec 2018

TubeMapCentral said:
I do wish that prople would stop making the claim that these draconian state interventions are somehow necessary to save the NHS. They won't save it (and related care services) a penny.

We are all going to die, and when we do, for most of us it will cost the NHS a fortune. At best, you are just trading the cost of managing diabetes with the cost of managing cancer. Getting old is unhealthy, and there is no way for controlling that varable. Take out the other contributors and you will just magnify its effects.

This is just wrong. Obesity costs the NHS something like £10bn every year and a large percentage of that is care received during mid or later life, and these obese people then go on to get cancer as well - so it is an additional cost, not a replacement cost.

Edit: Actual figure of cost to NHS in 2014-15 is £6bn.

TubeMapCentral · 27 Dec 2018

Intermodal said:
This is just wrong. Obesity costs the NHS something like £10bn every year and a large percentage of that is care received during mid or later life, and these obese people then go on to get cancer as well - so it is an additional cost, not a replacement cost.

Edit: Actual figure of cost to NHS in 2014-15 is £6bn.

Figures like that are all too often guestimated out of the sky by health activists overstating the problem. And lapped up without question by headline-grabbing media.

You haven't thought this through. Obesity is supposed to shorten life expectency, and cancer is a disease of old age. If obese people die younger than non-obese people, then that is X years less cancer development potential.

Plus, as healthy people get older, everything starts to go wrong anyway. Thin old people get arthritis too, and once that stops people caring for themselves, that is when the real expense kicks in.

Bottom line, you are not saving the state money, merely rearranging when that money is going to be spent and, if you are adding to life expectency, extending the payment period. Increasing life expectency without increasing life efficiency or quality of life during that extention is a questionable thing to do.

Barn · 27 Dec 2018

Bertie the bus said:
Nanny needs to justify her (overinflated) salary.

Essentially, this is the problem. If you create a team at PHE tasked with thinking up what interventions are needed, you're implicitly saying that they will be redundant if they don't think of anything. Which official in that position will ever say: "do you know, I think we should just let the existing regulations bed in for a bit, collect a few years' more data, maybe try out some localised trials, and see where we go from there"?

You very quickly get to the stage where anything unregulated stands out like a sore thumb and is the obvious next target for regulation.

Bletchleyite · 27 Dec 2018

AM9 said:
That would be just kicking the problem down the road. Any tax would need to be punitive. Any levy would need to be punitive in order to overcome whatever the predatory fast-food industry did next to undermine the measures.

No, you're misunderstanding. The tax should not be punitive. It should simply cover the costs of the consumption of unhealthy food to the NHS and leave it at that (basically being the equivalent of an increased premium you'd pay to a private insurer if that was the system and you were unhealthy). Provided you have sensible additional regulation like requirements to display nutritional information on menus (which I do support), if people then make bad decisions and die as a result that's simply Darwinism and nobody's issue but their own.

My views on alcohol and tobacco taxation are similar (and indeed I'm pro wider drug legalisation even though I have no intention to consume myself) - tax to cover the cost to policing and the NHS and leave people to decide what they consume (give or take possibly legislation to protect children from their parents' choices). Whether good or bad decisions, it's their own problem and nobody else's.

Bletchleyite · 27 Dec 2018

Bayum said:
The NHS ‘could’ spend money on aiming to reverse obesity

The NHS shouldn't spend anything to reverse obesity. If people eat themselves silly, get fat and die, it is their own problem, provided they are properly informed about what they are doing. The only people who deserve any influence on that are friends and family, and it's the individual's choice whether to heed that or not.

FWIW, the NHS is rubbish at that kind of thing anyway. If you want one organisation that's done more for fighting obesity in this country than any other in the entire history of the UK, it's Parkrun - and the NHS has nothing to do with that (and the State best kept as far away from it as possible other than allowing free use of parks, as once it starts meddling with it bad things happen).

Unfortunately, it is this exact issue of, “You can’t tell me what to do/not do/eat/not eat,” that is helping to continue this upward trend in the number of people being diagnosed with type two diabetes, needing joint replacements and other treatments for obesity-related diseases.

Tax the food to pay for those things and stop worrying about it.

It's like fare evasion - TOCs obsess about reducing it, but to me the solution is simpler - a statutory PF and inspection frequency that brings in enough PFs to fully cover the cost of fare evasion so the TOC brings in the same income from the whole set of fare evaders as it would if each person paid the correct fare, and stop worrying about it. Just like parking enforcement.

Mojo · 27 Dec 2018

People are overweight because they are inactive and don’t walk anywhere. If they actually cared about any individual’s health then something would be done about the sedentary lifestyles people lead, primarily because in many places people drive everywhere. Yet again over the last few days saving our high streets has been on the news and the answer seems to be “free parking” rather than “public transport” or “pedestrianisation and other public realm improvements .”

Bayum · 27 Dec 2018

Mojo said:
People are overweight because they are inactive and don’t walk everywhere. If they actually cared about any individual’s health then something would be done about the sedentary lifestyles people lead, primarily because in many places people drive everywhere. Yet again over the last few days saving our high streets has been on the news and the answer seems to be “free parking” rather than “public transport” or “pedestrianisation and other public realm improvements .”

Not the only reason, but ok.

Mojo · 27 Dec 2018

Bayum said:
Not the only reason, but ok.

A large, if not the main reason probably. The number of calories consumed since then by the average British citizen is lower than in the 1970s for example but the number of big people has increased.

Esker-pades · 27 Dec 2018

Bayum said:
Not the only reason, but ok.

Slightly is though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062013001655?via=ihub

This review explores the role of physical activity (PA) and exercise training (ET) in the prevention of weight gain, initial weight loss, weight maintenance, and the obesity paradox. In particular, we will focus the discussion on the expected initial weight loss from different ET programs, and explore intensity/volume relationships. Based on the present literature, unless the overall volume of aerobic ET is very high, clinically significant weight loss is unlikely to occur. Also, ET also has an important role in weight regain after initial weight loss. Overall, aerobic ET programs consistent with public health recommendations may promote up to modest weight loss (~ 2 kg), however the weight loss on an individual level is highly heterogeneous. Clinicians should educate their patients on reasonable expectations of weight loss based on their physical activity program and emphasize that numerous health benefits occur from PA programs in the absence of weight loss.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938418300337

Weight regain after weight loss is one of the most significant challenges to successful obesity treatment. Regular exercise has long been touted as a strategy for weight loss maintenance, but the lack of clear evidence in clinical trials has caused some to question its effectiveness. In this review, we present the arguments both questioning and in support of exercise as an obesity therapeutic. Our purpose is to bring clarity to the literature, present a unified perspective, and identify the gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed in future studies. Critical questions remain including sex differences, individual variability and compensatory behaviors in response to exercise, exercise adherence, the role of energy flux and the molecular mechanisms mediating the beneficial effects of exercise after weight loss and during weight regain. Future research should focus on these critical questions to provide a more complete understanding of the potential benefits of exercise on weight loss maintenance.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049518302270

Obesity is a multifactorial disease with increasing incidence and burden on societies worldwide. Obesity can be managed through everyday behavioral changes involving energy intake and energy expenditure. Concerning the latter, there is strong evidence that regular exercise contributes to body weight and fat loss, maintenance of body weight and fat reduction, and metabolic fitness in obesity. Appropriate exercise programs should ideally combine large negative energy balance, long-term adherence, and beneficial effects on health and well-being. Endurance training appears to be the most effective in this respect, although resistance training and high-intensity interval training play distinct roles in the effectiveness of exercise interventions. With weight regain being so common, weight loss maintenance is probably the greatest challenge in the successful treatment of obesity. There is an established association between higher levels of physical activity and greater weight loss maintenance, based on the abundance of evidence from prospective observational studies and retrospective analyses. However, proving a causative relationship between exercise and weight loss maintenance is difficult at present. Exercise has the potential to alleviate the health consequences of obesity, even in the absence of weight loss. All in all, exercise constitutes an indispensable, yet often underestimated, tool in the management of obesity.

TubeMapCentral · 27 Dec 2018

Bletchleyite said:
No, you're misunderstanding. The tax should not be punitive. It should simply cover the costs of the consumption of unhealthy food to the NHS and leave it at that (basically being the equivalent of an increased premium you'd pay to a private insurer if that was the system and you were unhealthy). Provided you have sensible additional regulation like requirements to display nutritional information on menus (which I do support), if people then make bad decisions and die as a result that's simply Darwinism and nobody's issue but their own.

My views on alcohol and tobacco taxation are similar (and indeed I'm pro wider drug legalisation even though I have no intention to consume myself) - tax to cover the cost to policing and the NHS and leave people to decide what they consume (give or take possibly legislation to protect children from their parents' choices). Whether good or bad decisions, it's their own problem and nobody else's.

Yes, but it better be proper whole-life-costing rather than tin-pot we-object-to-what-you-do-so-we-are-going-to-load-up-the-costs-against-you-even-if-they-would-have-been-incurred-anyway thinking that pervades the social sciences these days.

EDIT

And don't forget to include pensions!

Bayum · 28 Dec 2018

FelixtheCat said:
Slightly is though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062013001655?via=ihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938418300337

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049518302270

Lots here in a literature review. If you google exercise, weight loss and whatever, you’ll find many recent studies showing that weight loss is not wholly attributed to an increase in energy expenditure, especially when we burn only about 25-35% of energy from food we eat.

Bantamzen · 28 Dec 2018

FelixtheCat said:
The limit proposed is 544 calories. Given that the recommended average calorie intake for a man is 2500 calories per day, that means a person will have to eat 5 meals. Obviously, some will be offset by snacking, but for most people that will be an unhealthy snack. See the price of multipack of chocolate bars in a supermarket as compared to the same number of apples.

They seem to have missed the biggest thing about diet which is that it's about what one eats, not how much one eats. It also has to take into account how many calories a person burns in a day. I eat a lot, but I'm also underweight. I'm not the only one in the world who is like this.

This is before one gets into the mental health aspect of things. Will this legislation have unindended consequenes for those with an eating disorder or food anxiety? Quite possibly. It certainly won't do anything to help.

In order to tackle obesity, one has to make it easier to do the "right" things, not harder to do the "wrong" things. Make healthy stuff cheaper, encourage restaunrants and supermarkets to sell a balanced meal. A shovel load of chips and a bucket of chicken is not offset by a single piece of lettuce at the bottom of a burger, or example.

In conclusion, no.

This post is definitely a reason why there should be a 'Like' button on this forum, I couldn't say it better myself. Imposing limits on calories is not the way to solve any problems. This is evidenced by the companies making millions, even billions every year from selling their own calorie controlled diets. After all if the concept worked, the businesses would have collapsed years ago.

No this is just another round hole, square peg solution to a problem to make a poorly performing public body look like they are doing something. As Felix rightly says, we should be working to make healthier food cheaper and more accessible, and encourage more people to cook properly at home with fresh ingredients rather than relying on processed, microwaved trash. And before anyone activates the "Too busy" argument, good healthy food can be prepared and cooked in no time at all (Jamie Oliver for example has a very good 15 minute meals book that I often use).

Bletchleyite · 28 Dec 2018

If you’re time pushed, cooking a huge batch of chilli, curry, pasta sauce etc takes little or no more time than cooking one portion or one family’s worth, and then you’ve got a stack of DIY ready meals that are both cheaper and healthier (and nicer) than the ones you buy. This approach is particularly good for single people but works for anyone.

Islineclear3_1 · 28 Dec 2018

Although I agree with you, this can be difficult in practice after 12hr days and its not good having food in one's tummy when you're knackered and need to go to bed. But anyone can do anything if they really want to (or make excuses)and there are cheaper healthy options out there if one looks.

Bletchleyite · 28 Dec 2018

robert7111a said:
Although I agree with you, this can be difficult in practice after 12hr days and its not good having food in one's tummy when you're knackered and need to go to bed.

Hence the "DIY ready meals" approach - make it on a day you have time and enjoy a portion then, freeze a load in plastic boxes for when you need ready meals.

If you don't have time to cook on *any* day, I'd suggest revisiting life priorities unless you're an exceptional case like a carer for a disabled family member. My life is incredibly busy but half an hour can produce a nice beef chilli and a load of portions to freeze.

Baxenden Bank · 28 Dec 2018

Has Cornwall declared independence over this issue yet?

Has the Cornwall Volunteer Army burned down any Public Health England Buildings?

I ask because I doubt a single cornish pasty comes in at under 550 calories. Except those mini things where you just eat all 10 in a pack anyway and as a result get much more pastry (cheap and deadly) and less filling (more expensive).

Mojo · 28 Dec 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Hence the "DIY ready meals" approach - make it on a day you have time and enjoy a portion then, freeze a load in plastic boxes for when you need ready meals.

If you don't have time to cook on *any* day, I'd suggest revisiting life priorities unless you're an exceptional case like a carer for a disabled family member. My life is incredibly busy but half an hour can produce a nice beef chilli and a load of portions to freeze.

Sometimes I just don't want to cook and will go to Tesco's and buy a pack of two ready meals. The alternative option would be to go to Chicken Cottage or Crystal Kebabs and pay more money for a more unhealthy meal! Additionally I do not have a permanent base at work nor a guaranteed meal relief so can either carry my food with me and risk it going off or leave it in a fridge at a location which I might not be able to get back to. Shift workers already face enough difficulty and discrimination in life without being lectured to on what and when we can eat!

PeterC · 28 Dec 2018

Another level of bureaucracy to push small business out of the market. The big burger chains can afford the labs to check the calorific value of each portioned controlled dish. The landlady of my local might just decide that pub was worth more for its redevelopment value than for its meal trade.

Clip · 28 Dec 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Real food isn't *that* expensive if (a) you learn to cook, and (b) you go vegetarian.

(note: I am not pushing an agenda, I am a committed carnivore! But meat is expensive, it'd be the first thing to go if I was tight on funds)

This is a bit of a myth really - but what is expensive is based on your income - even if you dont have a good local butcher most people will have an Aldi or Lidl where you can pick up a decent joint of beef for a very reasonable price along with lots of other good quality meat products.

However your first statement is true - if people learned to cook then it would go some way to actually having a healty population

matacaster · 28 Dec 2018

Saying obesity causes the health service X amount is rather disingenuous.

If someone suffers ill-health as a result of obesity (or any other problem such as smoking) it definitely costs the NHS time and money. However, such unhealthy people may well die much earlier than the norm and are thus unlikely to be an on-going burden to very old age. In the 1950's, the old and infirm died from disease or simply freezing cold in winter. Now that the NHS tries to 'save' everyone, (in an overpopulated world!!) despite them often having no quality of life, they likely in the end die from alzheimers, with little idea of what is going on.

The NHS is great, but it should stick to 'saving' people who have a reasonable prospect of continuing life, largely without pain or mental issues. It was never intended to be do vanity (cosmetic) surgery except in the most extreme cases

Clip · 29 Dec 2018

matacaster said:
However, such unhealthy people may well die much earlier than the norm and are thus unlikely to be an on-going burden to very old age.

They may well do but the costs of their treatment before they die will be very high, so your statement doesn't hold the weight (sorry) you think it does.

matacaster said:
In the 1950's, the old and infirm died from disease or simply freezing cold in winter.

Which had nothing to do with the NHS nor any costs attributed to it so again your statement doesn't hold water

matacaster said:
The NHS is great, but it should stick to 'saving' people who have a reasonable prospect of continuing life, largely without pain or mental issues.

And obese people don't fall into that category? That's odd because your next statement

matacaster said:
It was never intended to be do vanity (cosmetic) surgery except in the most extreme cases

seems to contradict that - unless you think that gastric band surgery is cosmetic and all in the name of vanity and if so then you seem to have quite a warped view on the matter

underbank · 30 Dec 2018

Clip said:
They may well do but the costs of their treatment before they die will be very high, so your statement doesn't hold the weight (sorry) you think it does.

You need to think wider than the NHS. An early death saves the country a huge amount in state pension and other benefits too - even more if the person was a public sector worker with a PS pension too. So whilst an obese person MAY cost the NHS short term, the country as a whole saves in terms of the NHS not having to pay for longer term age-related illnesses, care costs nor age related benefits.

underbank · 30 Dec 2018

Mojo said:
People are overweight because they are inactive and don’t walk anywhere. If they actually cared about any individual’s health then something would be done about the sedentary lifestyles people lead, primarily because in many places people drive everywhere. Yet again over the last few days saving our high streets has been on the news and the answer seems to be “free parking” rather than “public transport” or “pedestrianisation and other public realm improvements .”

Conversely, because car parks are expensive and most town centres are anti-car, people stay at home and order online instead, meaning they don't even get the exercise of walking around town once they've parked up! Not only that, the "anti car" movement has reduced footfall and shoppers so the town centres are even less appealing, making it a vicious circle. Even those who used to get exercise by walking around the shops, including those who walked or used public transport to get there, now don't bother either and buy online instead, meaning less exercise for the non car drivers too!

Clip · 30 Dec 2018

underbank said:
You need to think wider than the NHS. An early death saves the country a huge amount in state pension and other benefits too - even more if the person was a public sector worker with a PS pension too. So whilst an obese person MAY cost the NHS short term, the country as a whole saves in terms of the NHS not having to pay for longer term age-related illnesses, care costs nor age related benefits.

But you never mentioned a wider picture - you specifically stated the NHS so i answered based on the NHS - cant keep moving the goalposts

rdeez · 31 Dec 2018

What a ridiculous proposal. I realise obesity is a real problem but there are limits to just how much meddling we should accept in the pursuit of getting people to lose weight. If I, as a sensible adult with a healthy BMI, want to eat a ready meal with 600, 700 or even more calories once in a while why shouldn't I be able to? I can think of loads of the top of my head that would fall foul of this. Almost every pizza that isn't child-sized, for starters...

The likelihood is that people will end up getting shafted as, instead of reformulating or where doing so is difficult due to the ingredients, manufacturers will just cut pack sizes until they're under the calorie count and yet we'll still be charged the same as before at the till.

Why don't we just skip to the logical end of all of this and get straight to the point where food is banned and we're issued with three equally sized, nutritionally complete meal replacement shakes every day by the government...for our own good, of course.

NoOnesFool · 31 Dec 2018

PR1Berske said:
Story in Boxing Day's Telegraph reports that Public Health England will force ready meal manufacturers and cafes/restaurants/takeaways to have a strict maximum limit of the amount of calories in each meal.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/25/revealed-new-calorie-limits-every-common-food/

Quote:

Attached is the front page of the Telegraph. The image shows the full story including proposed calorie limits for pizza and side dishes. The recommendations by Public Health England run to over 100 pages.

Urgh, nanny state strikes again.

NoOnesFool · 31 Dec 2018

PR1Berske said:
Story in Boxing Day's Telegraph reports that Public Health England will force ready meal manufacturers and cafes/restaurants/takeaways to have a strict maximum limit of the amount of calories in each meal.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/25/revealed-new-calorie-limits-every-common-food/

Quote:

Attached is the front page of the Telegraph. The image shows the full story including proposed calorie limits for pizza and side dishes. The recommendations by Public Health England run to over 100 pages.

Urgh, nanny state strikes again. I'm sure it's well intended but I think grown adults should be able to decide for themselves what they eat.

hooverboy · 31 Dec 2018

rdeez said:
Why don't we just skip to the logical end of all of this and get straight to the point where food is banned and we're issued with three equally sized, nutritionally complete meal replacement shakes every day by the government...for our own good, of course.

..and what happens if the government goes rogue and decides, for the good of the collective/country(not you),that there are too many aging people and need a cull, so decide to make the meal replacement shakes non nutritionally complete?
Sure, they should be held to account under a democracy so this stuff doesn't happen, but under a typical socialist government this type of behaviour is par for the course.

governments are notoriously good at reactionary policies are they not?
They are also quite adept in thinking that they are the best(if not only) , ones to solve the problems they already created.Government has a propensity to grow for the sake of government, and needs to be held in check.
left un-pruned, it can grow into a monopoly as easily as any corporation,and monopolies ALWAYS attempt to profiteer from their position.

A great deal of this obesity problem can be traced back to the councils et al selling off school playing fields 20 odd years ago in the first place.
Not only did it deprive the kids of a place to burn off excess energy, but at that young age,kids are impressionable, so they created the habit of non exercise playstation generation as an unintended consequence.

"give me a child until the age of 7,and I will give you the man" was an adage often used.
..so at age 7 they have already formented a habit (a rather slothful one IMHO)

cornishjohn · 31 Dec 2018

PeterC said:
Another level of bureaucracy to push small business out of the market. The big burger chains can afford the labs to check the calorific value of each portioned controlled dish. The landlady of my local might just decide that pub was worth more for its redevelopment value than for its meal trade.

Is the right answer! Most modern regulations drive smaller firms out of the market.

Public Health England recommends calorie limits for food sold at restaurants, supermarkets, etc

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member