U.K food makers told to cut calories by 20%

Options
24

Replies

  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    Options
    Froggyh wrote: »
    fr33sia12 wrote: »
    The_Ta wrote: »
    To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...

    Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.

    Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.

    You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.

    Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.

    And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.

    I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
  • fr33sia12
    fr33sia12 Posts: 1,258 Member
    edited March 2018
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Froggyh wrote: »
    fr33sia12 wrote: »
    The_Ta wrote: »
    To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...

    Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.

    Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.

    You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.

    Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.

    And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.

    I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.

    Does the pass cost money?

    Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.

    Asda do a £1 delivery on an evening or £2 through day. Minimum cost £25 so you could get a weekly, fortnightly or monthly shop then top up if needed.
    This is just an example though for a comment saying not everyone can get out to a big supermarket so go to a takeaway instead.
  • ap1972
    ap1972 Posts: 214 Member
    Options
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    ap1972 wrote: »
    I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.

    No poverty is not an excuse but it does contribute to being overly fat in many cases.
    Unless you have been on welfare (I was, and in foster care as well) then your opinion is just that: an uninformed opinion.

    My brother and I were both on federal aid for all of our childhoods.
    But we were NOT overweight. Want to know why?
    Because some days the only meal we had was school-provided lunch.

    When you have next to nothing but food seems to be plentiful you will often eat and horde it as a matter of survival.
    The "quality" of the food does not matter. Many people in those circumstances are conditioned to eat everything in sight because they do not know when the next meal might be.

    Yes, they might be eating "junk" foods but most restrictions on the SNAP program etc means they cannot buy most of that with federal aid.

    Besides, it is not just poor kids that are fat.
    Higher income kids are also fat, but by your logic they should all be in fighting shape, fit enough to enlist.
    Those families could easily afford healthier food choices more often.

    Bag of potato chips: $0.99
    1 lb of chicken breasts: $3.00

    Guess what seems like a better deal when you are nearly starving?
    Guess which one is "ready to eat" when you need to run to your second part-time job so the electricity or phone isn't turned off?

    Yes, carrots are also about $1 per pound, but carrots are not even close to chips when it comes to calorie density.
    The desire to take in high density calories is about as instinctive as hording food.
    Again, it is a function of survival. Until people think differently about food then the problems will continue.

    Dozens of adults on these forums are overly fat.
    Even though they have been on MFP for months or years, with access to all of the information, advice and experience provided free of charge, they still are not making significant progress.
    Why is that? Simply because people make choices, both good and bad.
    They commonly lack the discipline and resolve to make the better choice because the "bad" choice is easier for any number of reasons.

    Kids don't usually have that much going for them yet.

    No, this initiative in the UK will not fix the problem.
    I wish it were that simple.

    Half of what you put there goes towards substantiating the point I was making. The examples you give of food options are not great in terms of cost either.In UK a bag of Crisps has less calories than a bag of carrots but is more expensive same with a bunch of bananas. At end of the day it is amount you eat not what you eat that makes you overweight and the excuse that healthy food is more expensive is not valid. The term poverty is probably a bit provocative as as you say those in true poverty will not know where their next meal will come from as opposed to those who are less well off than others.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    fr33sia12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Froggyh wrote: »
    fr33sia12 wrote: »
    The_Ta wrote: »
    To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...

    Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.

    Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.

    You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.

    Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.

    And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.

    I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.

    Does the pass cost money?

    Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.

    Asda do a £1 delivery on an evening or £2 through day. Minimum cost £25 so you could get a weekly, fortnightly or monthly shop then top up if needed.
    This is just an example though for a comment saying not everyone can get out to a big supermarket so go to a takeaway instead.

    How widely is that available in the UK? I'm pretty sure nothing that inexpensive is available for me here (in the US), and certainly not in the crummier neighborhoods or less urban areas.

    I do agree with the point that the options are not going to a big supermarket or takeaway.
  • tess5036
    tess5036 Posts: 942 Member
    edited March 2018
    Options
    While I completely agree regarding education, I also think there is an issue where manufacturers often choose to put in ingredients that are calorie dense because they think we want it as it makes things 'taste nicer', mainly sugars and fats. Adapting some ingredients would allow for calorie reductions without the need to change portion sizes. Unfortunately, that strategy is likely to be less profitable.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    tess5036 wrote: »
    While I completely agree regarding education, I also think there is an issue where manufacturers often choose to put in ingredients that are calorie dense because they think we want it as it makes things 'taste nicer', mainly sugars and fats. Adapting some ingredients would allow for calorie reductions without the need to change portion sizes. Unfortunately, that strategy is likely to be less profitable.

    The article suggests that this is a continuation of prior efforts to convince manufacturers to lower sodium and sugar in products. So that means it specifically is not about sugar:

    "The new strategy outlines 13 food categories, including savoury biscuits, cooking sauces, sandwiches, ready meals and potato products such as crisps and chips. However, foods in the agency’s separate plan to cut the sugar content of products such as chocolate, cakes and breakfast cereals by 20% are not included."

    Also:

    "Tedstone said food producers have a number of options for meeting the target, including reformulating products, promoting healthy options and reducing portion sizes."

    It seems like reducing size (which might address portion distortion) is the most likely option, but I dunno.

    It also seems unclear how it's being enforced, the current effort seems to be public pressure/encouragement with threat of something more:

    "'She said PHE would produce guidance for specific categories of products by 2019 for the whole food industry to follow, and report regularly on what steps are being taken by major companies.

    'PHE will advise government if progress isn’t being made,' said Tedstone, noting that the government might invoke “other levers” in that case. Selbie added: 'There will be complete transparency and published progress or not, by category, by company, by products.'"
  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Froggyh wrote: »
    fr33sia12 wrote: »
    The_Ta wrote: »
    To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...

    Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.

    Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.

    You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.

    Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.

    And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.

    I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.

    Does the pass cost money?

    Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.

    Yes I pay £20-£30 for 6 months which averages £1 a week. i live in a quite rural location so I'm lucky they deliver.
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,208 Member
    Options
    SteamPug wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    In the US, most low-income people can eat reasonably healthy if they truly desire it. Lots of websites explain how. But poor people often opt for "junk" food because it's tastier and easier. It requires self-discipline to choose foods that are less tasty and take longer to prepare. It also requires discipline to exercise. Incidentally, increasing one's income and saving money require discipline.
    Please tell me you’re not reasoning that people are poor because they lack the self discipline to save money.

    I'm saying that earning more and spending less requires self discipline, just like reducing one's weight & exercising does, so it's not surprising that obesity is correlated with both poverty and sedentariness in the US (source).

    Of course, there are exceptions to the trend.. but they don't disprove that the trend exists.