Food packaging

emergencytennis

Australia was the first country in the world to legislate for compulsory plain paper packaging for cigarettes.

Cigarettes must only be sold in brown paper and carry the previously legislated graphic images of smoking-related diseases.

Early indications are that the packaging encourages current smokers to quit and discourages young people from trying smoking.

The survey was commissioned by The Cancer Council.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/research-backs-move-to-plain-cigarette-packaging/4835060

This legislation is in direct response to the human and financial cost to Australian society due to smoking-related illness.

Obesity is the current first-world health crisis. I am not a epidemiologist, and I recognise that cause-and-effect is complex with obesity-related diseases, but the cost due to obesity-related illnesses has to be comparable to that of smoking-related illnesses.

So, what do you reckon? Plain paper packaging for stuff masquerading as food but actually comprised of floor-sweepings and fat?



The local pizza houses have just started listing the recommended daily adult kilojoule intake along with the kilojoules for each pizza on their menu. The fact that the pizza equals the daily intake in some cases is left for the consumer to divine, but it is a step in the right direction and I appreciate the unlegislated-for effort. They are tasty, too.

grrrlface

I do think people should be made aware of the food they are eating and how much they should be consuming in a day to be healthy.
But even with it spelt out, some people still won't take notice.

I do find surveys done by an opposing group to the thing they are surveying to be biased anyway. If a cigarette company were doing the survey it would probably show no change or more people smoking after plain packets were introduced. (I'm not saying it'snot correct, I'm saying the surveys should be done by a none biased party.)

At the same time, I think in the case of junk foods, if you take away the appealing packaging then less people may buy them, for example, bags of sweets in the supermarket, take away the bright packaging and those sweets really dont look so appealing - to me anyway...

emergencytennis

I do think people should be made aware of the food they are eating and how much they should be consuming in a day to be healthy.
But even with it spelt out, some people still won't take notice.

I do find surveys done by an opposing group to the thing they are surveying to be biased anyway. If a cigarette company were doing the survey it would probably show no change or more people smoking after plain packets were introduced. (I'm not saying it'snot correct, I'm saying the surveys should be done by a none biased party.)

At the same time, I think in the case of junk foods, if you take away the appealing packaging then less people may buy them, for example, bags of sweets in the supermarket, take away the bright packaging and those sweets really dont look so appealing - to me anyway...

You have spotted my tacit disclaimer regarding the source of the survey. In response, though, the best refutation that British American Tobacco came up with was that the sample size was too small (500 people).

How many women would buy sweets for their children if the packet carried an image of rotten teeth instead of an image of dancing rainbows?

The question is where do we draw the line in sand? I think that all the power is in the hands of the retailers regarding how they can sell their product. At some point the people, via their government, has to say that you can't market unhealthy things without any regulation.