Is there a conspiracy to keep Britain fat?
Discussion
My turn for a conspiracy thread.
For some reason anti-obesity drives never seem to get off the ground. They're either abandoned by the government or scrapped altogether when a new one gets in and another "review" is launched which kicks the issue down the road for a few years.
Cameron's anti-obesity strategy is widely known to have been dismantled by May.
This guardian article lists a brief summary of Major->Boris strategies.
Since then: Liz Truss paused them all for another "review" and would likely have scrapped the lot. And Sunak is kicking it into the long grass as well.
Is this just effective lobbying by the food industry?
Pepsico (which is only one of many food companies) for example spends over $3Billion a year on marketing, and expects to see growth even in recession. Mcdonalds alone spends over £80M in the UK..
By comparison, Public Health England had a budget of £32M for direct-to-public expenditure.
So from a marketing POV, healthy/low margin food isn't going to stand a chance in the UK. Is some of that massive marketing spend going to politicians to keep them from implementing that would prioritise health/the NHS over corporate profits?
For some reason anti-obesity drives never seem to get off the ground. They're either abandoned by the government or scrapped altogether when a new one gets in and another "review" is launched which kicks the issue down the road for a few years.
Cameron's anti-obesity strategy is widely known to have been dismantled by May.
This guardian article lists a brief summary of Major->Boris strategies.
Since then: Liz Truss paused them all for another "review" and would likely have scrapped the lot. And Sunak is kicking it into the long grass as well.
Is this just effective lobbying by the food industry?
Pepsico (which is only one of many food companies) for example spends over $3Billion a year on marketing, and expects to see growth even in recession. Mcdonalds alone spends over £80M in the UK..
By comparison, Public Health England had a budget of £32M for direct-to-public expenditure.
So from a marketing POV, healthy/low margin food isn't going to stand a chance in the UK. Is some of that massive marketing spend going to politicians to keep them from implementing that would prioritise health/the NHS over corporate profits?
Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 17th June 12:24
Not the same industry but why do you think gambling companies are still free to advertise everywhere? It’s because the companies gift endless experiences to endless MPs who then speak favourable about it and resist actually doing something.
On the food thing the government aren’t going to outspend the combined industry. Beyond education there isn’t masses you can do unless you start adding taxes as with the sugar tax - I’m not aware that led to massive reductions in consumption although it may have pushed companies to increase sugar free drinks so you might consider it effective.
On the food thing the government aren’t going to outspend the combined industry. Beyond education there isn’t masses you can do unless you start adding taxes as with the sugar tax - I’m not aware that led to massive reductions in consumption although it may have pushed companies to increase sugar free drinks so you might consider it effective.
I don't think there's any conspiracy.
I think many of the Conservative party membership see it as "socialist landmines" as one their MPs described it in one of your links.
Or "nanny state" or "state interference" call it what you like I just suspect a lot of Conservatives don't see it as something Government should be involved in.
I think many of the Conservative party membership see it as "socialist landmines" as one their MPs described it in one of your links.
Or "nanny state" or "state interference" call it what you like I just suspect a lot of Conservatives don't see it as something Government should be involved in.
Rufus Stone said:
glazbagun said:
I asked first.
Oh, I thought you wanted to discuss a solution but it appears not.Generally, a discussion would involve more than one person putting forward views, unless one wants to adopt the role of facilitator?
Ian Geary said:
This exchange makes me think of the monty python argument sketch.
Generally, a discussion would involve more than one person putting forward views, unless one wants to adopt the role of facilitator?
You haven't put forward any views though. In fact you refused to do so.Generally, a discussion would involve more than one person putting forward views, unless one wants to adopt the role of facilitator?
You just want to discuss your conspiracy theory.
There is no conspiracy.
Many Brits just like to be fat and lazy.
The Dutch, Scandinavians etc have just as much access to rubbish food and drink but are generally a lot less obese.
It stands to reason then, that all things being pretty much equal, British people tend to embrace rubbish diets and drinking to excess with less exercise more.
Too many fatties who should stop driving everywhere and get off their collective backsides.
Many Brits just like to be fat and lazy.
The Dutch, Scandinavians etc have just as much access to rubbish food and drink but are generally a lot less obese.
It stands to reason then, that all things being pretty much equal, British people tend to embrace rubbish diets and drinking to excess with less exercise more.
Too many fatties who should stop driving everywhere and get off their collective backsides.
Here is an answer. It's not a conspiracy as such, just that in order to make more profit, food companies must find ways of getting us to eat more and more food, and ultra processed food is how they do it.
The ZOE podcasts can get a bit waffly but this one is very interesting and deserves watching. Listen for example to what Tim Spector has to say about low fat yoghurts.
The ZOE podcasts can get a bit waffly but this one is very interesting and deserves watching. Listen for example to what Tim Spector has to say about low fat yoghurts.
There is from time to time talk in the press about "the blob".
Whilst probably not the best description to use in this context, it does appear there is some "thing" that is preventing our love away from unhealthy food and lifestyles.
In general, I feel straight forward cock up often gets mistaken for conspiracy.
If the question is framed around "why people/families continue to be unhealthy?", I am totally comfortable with saying it's because junk food tastes nice, and exercise is hard work. So not conspiracy, but just human nature.
However, of you frame it around "why does government policy keep getting pulled -[b,] before it's had a chance to demonstrate if it's effective or not [/b]?" - then that is a different question.
I work with public health England staff. They are very dedicated, and I can't conceive of them being subject to lobbying, briabiary or other dark forces to keep the UK fat.
I can see them printing 400,000 glossy leaflets to distribute around go surgeries that go unopened and get thrown away after 18 months of kicking round.
Public health tries to plug into local authority sports programmes, but even with public health's ever so slightly big budget, it's just not enough to make a difference on top of the statutory stuff they do.
I could well imagine government policy being watered down in the face of lobbyists - the example of gambling sums it up perfectly, as does rentals property and all the other things where money talks.
But finally, I'd say it is just politics. No government who taxes sugar and salt out of existence, and compels people force their heart rate up for hours a week is going to get voted in again.
Whilst probably not the best description to use in this context, it does appear there is some "thing" that is preventing our love away from unhealthy food and lifestyles.
In general, I feel straight forward cock up often gets mistaken for conspiracy.
If the question is framed around "why people/families continue to be unhealthy?", I am totally comfortable with saying it's because junk food tastes nice, and exercise is hard work. So not conspiracy, but just human nature.
However, of you frame it around "why does government policy keep getting pulled -[b,] before it's had a chance to demonstrate if it's effective or not [/b]?" - then that is a different question.
I work with public health England staff. They are very dedicated, and I can't conceive of them being subject to lobbying, briabiary or other dark forces to keep the UK fat.
I can see them printing 400,000 glossy leaflets to distribute around go surgeries that go unopened and get thrown away after 18 months of kicking round.
Public health tries to plug into local authority sports programmes, but even with public health's ever so slightly big budget, it's just not enough to make a difference on top of the statutory stuff they do.
I could well imagine government policy being watered down in the face of lobbyists - the example of gambling sums it up perfectly, as does rentals property and all the other things where money talks.
But finally, I'd say it is just politics. No government who taxes sugar and salt out of existence, and compels people force their heart rate up for hours a week is going to get voted in again.
There's no massive profits in selling real whole food. There's no ability to iterate newer and more exciting versions of the carrot, for example.
There's lots of profit in selling manufactured industrial slop. You can continuously churn out new and exciting versions of various crisps or sweets.
That and seeing as wage increases haven't kept up with inflation, people have to work more / longer / both parents to afford life. Therefore convenience takes place of nutrition.
Follow the money.
There's lots of profit in selling manufactured industrial slop. You can continuously churn out new and exciting versions of various crisps or sweets.
That and seeing as wage increases haven't kept up with inflation, people have to work more / longer / both parents to afford life. Therefore convenience takes place of nutrition.
Follow the money.
Rufus Stone said:
Ian Geary said:
This exchange makes me think of the monty python argument sketch.
Generally, a discussion would involve more than one person putting forward views, unless one wants to adopt the role of facilitator?
You haven't put forward any views though. In fact you refused to do so.Generally, a discussion would involve more than one person putting forward views, unless one wants to adopt the role of facilitator?
You just want to discuss your conspiracy theory.
Dingu said:
Not the same industry but why do you think gambling companies are still free to advertise everywhere? It’s because the companies gift endless experiences to endless MPs who then speak favourable about it and resist actually doing something.
On the food thing the government aren’t going to outspend the combined industry. Beyond education there isn’t masses you can do unless you start adding taxes as with the sugar tax - I’m not aware that led to massive reductions in consumption although it may have pushed companies to increase sugar free drinks so you might consider it effective.
Sugar free is not the solution and artificial sweeteners lead to other issues.On the food thing the government aren’t going to outspend the combined industry. Beyond education there isn’t masses you can do unless you start adding taxes as with the sugar tax - I’m not aware that led to massive reductions in consumption although it may have pushed companies to increase sugar free drinks so you might consider it effective.
Even the WHO have expressed concerns about artificial sweeteners. I can't consume anything containing artificial sweeteners as it gives me severe headaches amongst other things. (and I'm not alone here).
EmailAddress said:
They won't 'pick' on their floating constituents.
The people we’re discussing, generally speaking, won’t float.But I agree nobody wants to offend anybody anymore so the chances of fat shaming, exercise shaming or The British Carrot Marketing Board getting a billion pound grant are remote. Human rights innit.
Terminator X said:
To the OP how about people take some personal responsibility and if they have kids then for them too. You are only overweight because you eat too much and exercise too little. A random minority may have a medical excuse but for the vast majority nope.
TX.
I used to think that way but it's not that simple. I no longer blame people themselves for becoming obese - although some blame can be apportioned for not wanting to do anything about it. The blame lies more with food companies for selling us worse and worse food because it's more profitable, and the government for letting them do it.TX.
king arthur said:
Terminator X said:
To the OP how about people take some personal responsibility and if they have kids then for them too. You are only overweight because you eat too much and exercise too little. A random minority may have a medical excuse but for the vast majority nope.
TX.
I used to think that way but it's not that simple. I no longer blame people themselves for becoming obese - although some blame can be apportioned for not wanting to do anything about it. The blame lies more with food companies for selling us worse and worse food because it's more profitable, and the government for letting them do it.TX.
Big business will always win - food, tobacco, oil - it takes a lot to turn the tide. I was going to say massive great big supertanker but…
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff