Liz Truss could scrap junk food crackdowns in Tory U-turn over fight against obesity

Controversial: Politics & Govt Politics & Govt: Chat / Discussions
, , ,
1

The Treasury has commissioned an “internal summary” of its anti-obesity measures in a drive to cut red tape in the cost-of-living crisis. While the timetable and scope is being kept under wraps, it is understood the move that could lead to junk food policies being cancelled or revoked.

It is likely to examine the pledge to end buy-one-get-one-free and ‘3 for 2’ supermarket deals on unhealthy food and drink in October 2023 - already delayed by a year thanks to Boris Johnson. It could also review a January 2024 ban on junk food TV ads before the 9pm watershed and online, which was also already delayed.

The review could reportedly go further - and lead to Tory ministers cancelling fat-fighting measures that are already in place, like calorie counts on menus and the 2018 sugar tax. Restrictions on putting high-fat, salt or sugar products at checkouts, entrances and the end of aisles were also due to kick in this October.

The Obesity Health Alliance told the Guardian removing obesity crackdowns would be “a kick in the teeth”, adding: “We are deeply concerned. It would be reckless to waste government and business time and money rowing back on these obesity policies, which are evidence-based and already in law.”

A government source said “it is right that we continue to monitor the impact of the restrictions on the cost of living” in an unprecedented global situation with the economy.

Boris Johnson changed his tune on so-called “nannying” food bans after he almost died of Covid, and vowed to introduce a strategy to cut obesity.

A U-turn from BJ, now a U-turn on his U-turn from MsTruss, who’s obviously thinking of the wealth of the multi-national junk food corporations and not the health of the UK population.

:angry:

She’ll save the Tory government a few million and do nothing to stop what is becoming a national health crisis:

Tackling obesity: The role of the NHS in a whole-system approach

In 2019/20 there were more than 1,000,000 hospital admissions linked to obesity in England, an increase of 17 per cent on the previous year. Rising rates of obesity translate to increasing costs for the NHS. In 2014/15 the NHS spent £6.1 billion on treating obesity-related ill health, this is forecast to rise to £9.7 billion per year by 2050 (NHS Digital 2021; Public Health England 2017).

• Differences in obesity rates translate to worse health outcomes for people in more deprived areas and contribute to health inequalities. Rates of obesity-related hospital admissions in the most deprived areas of England are 2.4 times greater than in the least deprived areas (NHS Digital 2021; Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2019).

Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives

Tackling obesity is one of the greatest long-term health challenges this country faces. Today, around two-thirds (63%) of adults are above a healthy weight, and of these half are living with obesity. We have 1 in 3 children leaving primary school who are already overweight or living with obesity with 1 in 5 living with obesity.

Obesity prevalence is highest amongst the most deprived groups in society. Children in the most deprived parts of the country are more than twice as likely to be obese as their peers living in the richest areas. This is sowing the seeds of adult diseases and health inequalities in early childhood.

Obesity is associated with reduced life expectancy. It is a risk factor for a range of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, at least 12 kinds of cancer, liver and respiratory disease, and obesity can impact on mental health.

Our country’s rates of obesity are storing up future problems for individuals and our NHS. But worryingly, there is now consistent evidence that people who are overweight or living with obesity who contract coronavirus (COVID-19) are more likely to be admitted to hospital, to an intensive care unit and, sadly to die from COVID-19 compared to those of a healthy body weight status. Obesity has become an immediate concern for anyone who is overweight and for our health and care services.

2 Likes
2

There’s always been a dilemma about this sort of issue. Yes, obesity costs the NHS money, but then again income from fast food and the savings in pensions due to early deaths has to be taken into account. Governments also have to be seen to be doing the ethical thing.

Other examples are obviously smoking and alcohol.

Bottom line is down to the, er, bottom line.

3

I have no words. :frowning_face: No civil ones anyway…

1 Like
4

Good because it’s not for the government to tell people what they can eat I’d like to see less government in our lives together.

1 Like
5

You do realise that the opposite is occurring though? More and more, the government are training us to accept things that we would have laughed at 20 years ago.

1 Like
6

Yes it’s why I personally didn’t do anything they told us to during the so-called pandemic. Resist when you can I say

7

Not quite my idea of “resistance”, but to each their own I suppose.

1 Like
8

It didn’t take much to realise we were being duped so to me it was resisting the big pharma and wef etc.

9

Well, yes and no. It is surely good government to inform people about what is healthy eating and what is not. This information is good for individuals and it is good for the country as a whole. If the government does not do this, who will?
I’ll tell who will not provide this information - the producers of unhealthy foods. Fast food is produced by some the the largest businesses (not only by them but a big chunk by them). Snacking foods (sweets, biscuits, crisps) are made by some of the largest businesses. They advertise these foods to sell more of these foods - regardless of the impact on people’s health and wellbeing. The role of government should be to manage these ads that influence what people eat. These are unhealthy foods. There should not be complete freedom for businesses to push / influence people into eating such foods. It only makes very profitable businesses and not healthy people.
Promotions (3 for 2, bogof, extra amounts, jumbo size) are even worse. This is literally killing people - all for the profit of businesses. Government should be able to act to limit this.
This is particularly the case when fast food or junk food are the most affordable foods. I’d prefer to such government controls on ads and promotions on junk food aligned with better promotion of healthy eating. But I’ll take control of junk food any day of the week.

10

Then you were endangering others. How nice of you.

2 Likes
11

You have no idea what I was doing as for endangering people the nhs did that as I am now dying of cancer and can attest to.

12

First, I am very sorry to hear that you are so very ill. That is truly tragic. And the NHS was stretched beyond its capabilities during the pandemic. This will have meant that treatments for other problems were, in some cases, not available or delayed. I’m guessing, from what you state, that you fall into this group. Many others were similarly affected, which adds to the tragedy of people who died due to the pandemic.
My post, that stated you endangered others in your action, was in response to your claim that you did not do anything which we were advised to do during the pandemic. That was a clear statement and meant that you adhered to none of the rules - social engagement, distancing, washing hands, wearing a mask, getting the vaccine, etc. To actively not do these things would be to act in a way that endangered others. You now say that I do not know what you were doing - well, you had said that you did not of the we were told to do, so yes, you have informed me of what you were doing/not doing. Or have you changed your mind on what you were doing / not doing?

13

I was housebound due to my symptoms two weeks prior to lock down I came out after I collapsed at home from blood loss and I’m now recovering from a hysterectomy. I refused the bullying vaccine nutcases and refuse to wear a face nappy. My husband had covid despite his wearing one. BTW I didn’t need telling to wash my hands I do that anyway as I’m not a filthy beggar like some are.

I’m not anti vax before you say anything about that as I’m off to get my flu vax next week as I have for the past ten years or so.

14

I an understand why they are doing this at this time, but I hope it is temporary. Manufacturers do not need to add extra salt & sugar to foods. I hope the food labelling system to show if it’s too high / low and calories isn’t going to be scrapped.

1 Like
15

You were aware that wearing a mask was less about protecting you from others with Covid and more about protecting others should you have had Covid? Its like when surgeons wear the exact same masks they are not doing it to protect themselves but to protect their patient. So you refusing to wear a mask was you deciding that your minor discomfort was more important than providing some protection to others. Thanks.

1 Like
16

And are you aware those who lip read were isolated cruelly during this pretend pandemic that the so called pandemic was softening you up to accept further wef lock downs ? The number died with covid far outweighed those who died of covid. That areas didn’t lock down and mask wear had same outcomes as those who did ?

17

I’m not going to engage with you any further. Clearly you are not well and I do not wish to create stress for you. And our exchange has nothing to do with junk food, which is the topic of this thread. End.

18

I can’t help wondering how far Boris followed his own rules he
doesn’t look as if he has. Hmm.

1 Like
19

He’s an Eton and Burlington club man. No junk food for him. I should think his robust figure has been gained from some very fine dining. That is ‘fine’ as in posh nosh, as opposed to ‘fine’ as in delicate.

1 Like
20

Posh nosh looks as bad for us as junk food.

2 Likes