| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Call for EU-wide junk food ban |
| 2004-05-27 |
Thursday May 27, 2004 David Batty and agencies European legislation would be needed to impose an effective ban on junk food advertising, according to a public health specialist. Dr Geof Rayner, the former chairman of the UK Public Health Association (UKPHA), said that a national ban on television commercials that promote junk food, such as burgers and fizzy drinks, would be ineffective because of widespread and growing access to satellite TV. His comments came after the Commons health select committee today recommended a voluntary ban on TV commercials promoting unhealthy food in a damning report on Britain’s obesity epidemic. Of course, this will not stop the EU pols from running up tremendous expense accounts debating something so patently ridiculous. Protesters will waddle over these politicians’ broken and bleeding bodies to get to a properly made American hamburger. He said: "In order to impose any limit on the amount of junk food advertisements for children we must tackle it at the European level. In Sweden they have a ban on marketing to children but a lot comes in through satellite TV, so the food industry can usurp the national ban." Dr Rayner, who sits on the UKPHA council, also called on the government to address European Union (EU) subsidies for unhealthy foods. He said that 48% of the European commission’s budget went on subsidies to the food industry, but this funding took no account of how healthy the food produced was. "[T]ackle it at an European level ..." What, like Spain did with the war on terror? Bwahahahaha!!! "The EU shouldn’t be subsidising fats and sugars. Subsidies need to go towards those parts of the industry which are producing healthy foods. The UK government could take the lead there and conduct a health impact assessment on the European common agricultural policy." Although Dr Rayner said that only a global obesity strategy would be able to counterbalance the efforts of multinational food companies, he did recommend that local authorities draw up strategies to address the health inequalities that often lay behind high rates of obesity. Maybe if they stopped subsidizing every last corner tobacconist and mom-and-pop shop, but I digress. "We know that people living in more deprived areas can obtain a wide range of cheap ’energy dense’ options such as crisps and chocolates, and have less access to healthier foods", he said. "Primary care trusts and local authorities need to develop their own food and health strategy which looks at what local people are eating; access to healthy food; the pricing of food; school nutrition; and obesogenic influences, such as sedentary lifestyles." How about letting Darwin set the rules? It’s worked rather well for millions of years. Paul Streets, chief executive of the Health Development Agency, said that tackling health inequalities was central to reducing spiralling rates of obesity. He said: "Levels of obesity are up to twice as high among women in disadvantaged groups, children from poorer backgrounds are more likely to suffer weight problems and there is a higher prevalence in some ethnic groups and in different regions across the country. "Individual choice is often blamed as the cause of obesity. However, it’s vital to remember disadvantaged people may not have a choice - whether it be the cost of eating healthily, having transport to reach shops selling fresh fruit and veg or having access to safe places to be physically active." The health select committee’s report criticised the NHS for not making the treatment and prevention of obesity a top priority. It highlighted examples of GPs being told to cut down on prescriptions for obesity drugs and patients having difficulties accessing services. Slap a legislative BandAid on a sucking chest wound. Way to go, Europe! |
| Posted by:Zenster |
| #14 Thats: In the early 70's my dad had |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-27 11:03:21 PM |
| #13 In the early 70's my had under him an Airman who was a PJ in Vietnam (jumped into the jungle behind enemy lines to rescue pilots, probably the most dangerous of all specialties). The guy was built like a WWF wrestler, smart, and highly motivated. Just the guy you want in the military. But he was way over the new weight guidelines and the only way to meet it would have been to amputate a leg at the hip So he was drummed out. Stupid, stupid, stupid. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-27 11:02:05 PM |
| #12 When I joined the Air Force in 1965, a person 5'10" tall had a maximum allowable weight of 225 pounds. When I re-enlisted for the third time in 1973, the maximum allowable weight was down to 210 pounds. When I re-enlisted in 1984, the maximum allowable weight was 187 pounds, and now they tell me I shouldn't weigh more than 179 pounds. The only thing that changed was a group of "health scientists" deciding that "lean" was better than "chunky", and we should all be "lean". The last time I weighed 179 pounds was in 1968, after a bout with malaria that almost killed me. We are NOT all string-bean thin. People differ in bone density, bulk, mass (mine is consistently between 1.03 and 1.07 - can't float for sh$$), and muscle tone, and a dozen other factors. The life insurance companies can make a bundle if they can keep all of us living ten years longer than the actuarial tables indicate, and "being thin" was thought to be one way to do that. It blew up in their faces, deaths actually ROSE, and they're now re-thinking, trying to find out what went wrong. In the meantime, we're still fighting a manufactured "obesity" epidemic (government got involved, God help us all!), and trying to stay partially sane. I'm ready to give up sanity, become selectively insane, and start shooting lawyers. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-05-27 10:45:28 PM |
| #11 #9/Raj - And an Arby's Big Montana from mine! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-27 6:22:12 PM |
| #10 As silly as it might be for someone to complain low-income people are getting fat from watching fairly expensive satellite TV,the last laugh may be on US.At least in Europe they don't have lawyers trying to start a class-action lawsuit against McDonalds for making people fat. My favorite solution to end the growth in class-action lawsuits:Law firm cannot collect fees in excess of what a "victim" receives as compensation. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-05-27 5:31:59 PM |
| #9 "You can have my Buffalo Wings and blue cheese dressing when you pry them from my cold, dead hands (drenched in Frank's Red Hot Sauce)!" |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-27 5:21:12 PM |
| #8 Sarge - L'Escargot "Doesn't taste like chicken. Tastes like roast beef!" |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-27 5:15:40 PM |
| #7 I will kiss Chirac butt at High noon on the Eifel tower if the start banning McDonalds, BK, KFC, etc from Europe. This is a lot of hot air. The Euros |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-05-27 5:08:56 PM |
| #6 And with all the problems facing them today: terrorism, their economies, anti-Semitism, Iraq, some of the consequences of socialsm . . . they choose to complain about Oreo commercials. I'm not sure whether to give up on them or fall on the floor laughing. Although BigEd's last remark had me doing just that . . . |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-05-27 3:55:50 PM |
| #5 Dr Geof Rayner, the former chairman of the UK Public Health Association (UKPHA), said that a national ban on television commercials that promote junk food, such as burgers and fizzy drinks, would be ineffective because of widespread and growing access to satellite TV. The appearance of a heavy breathing bureaucrat on TV alarmed people, because it had interuppted the reshowing of the final episode of "Friends". A short bespectacled man speaks in English with a Swedish accent : There are no WMDs in Ir....Sorry, wrong topic. . . Yes, yes, since our ban on junk food advertising has been thwarted by satellite TV, we are instituting a ban on satellite dishes, yes! yes! Anyone now caught with a dish will have their eyes put out out with red hot pokers, oh, wonderful! yes, and those caught viewing said commercial will be executed on the spot. Wonderful. Amnesty International has let us have this one instance of the death penalty. Wonderful. Yes. Yes! YES!!! (at this point the camera turns to a window. Two trees are seen at a distance.) The bureaucrat can still be heard screaming. . . Bring that back, bring it back. . . Someone is heard falling to the ground, the heavy breathing continues. Then silence. On the screen "Please Stand By" appears in 12 languages. . . . |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-27 3:42:30 PM |
| #4 Naturally, no scolding nannygram would be complete without three obligatory references to The ChildrenTM. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-27 3:00:38 PM |
| #3 The EU should change its name to "Scrappleface." |
| Posted by: Infidel Bob 2004-05-27 2:37:22 PM |
| #2 But I thought it was only evil Americans who were fat, lazy, stupid, etc. |
| Posted by: dreadnought 2004-05-27 2:33:24 PM |
| #1 "Dr Geof Rayner ... said that a national ban on television commercials that promote junk food, such as burgers and fizzy drinks, would be ineffective because of widespread and growing access to satellite TV." Yeah yeah, and the evil internetweb has caused paedophilia, juvenile delinquency and town-centre violence on Saturday nights... Some people just don't get it! If people want to eat crap, and get fat, let them! Nanny folk and you diminish their ability to look after themselves responsibly in every other way. How about letting Darwin set the rules? Natural selection's not just about survival of the fittest - it's primarily about survival of the fit. In every animal population there are many individuals which, for one reason or another, just fail to meet the basic requirements that should be met in order to pass their characteristics on to the next generation. There are far, far, far more of these than there are those super-fit freaks carrying new beneficial mutations. The human species is no exception to the rule. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-05-27 2:25:13 PM |