Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Government control of portion sizes and calories
jesspen91
Posts: 1,383 Member
This article was on the BBC this morning about the UK government setting targets to reduce the calories in fast food and ready meals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40967300
Responses on Facebook were very negative with people feeling that this was too 'nanny-state' but I can see the benefits. It is difficult to make healthy decisions on convenience food when you only have an array of high calorie options. Bringing down he calories and portion sizes as a whole will help people make better decisions.
However, I believe that at a less controversial move would simply be to provide the nutritional information so that customers can make an informed choice. Some restaurant chains in the UK do this but the vast majority do not. Then you can make people more aware of how many calories they are consuming but they are allowed to make their own choice in whether to overindulge.
What do you think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40967300
Responses on Facebook were very negative with people feeling that this was too 'nanny-state' but I can see the benefits. It is difficult to make healthy decisions on convenience food when you only have an array of high calorie options. Bringing down he calories and portion sizes as a whole will help people make better decisions.
However, I believe that at a less controversial move would simply be to provide the nutritional information so that customers can make an informed choice. Some restaurant chains in the UK do this but the vast majority do not. Then you can make people more aware of how many calories they are consuming but they are allowed to make their own choice in whether to overindulge.
What do you think?
2
Replies
-
I don't think it's a good idea. 1 meal or 1 really high calorie item won't ruin a diet. It's repetitive over eating that impacts one's health.13
-
Maybe today I didn't get chance for breakfast or lunch and fancy a high calorie gigornormous burger or the such for dinner. Maybe I'm trying to put ON weight and the bigger the serving the better for me. Maybe I just want to eat what I want and not be told what's good for me? How can the government decide what's the right size portion for the whole population when there are skinny people, tall people, people with fast metabolisms and people who are let's face it, just quite capable of making their own decisions. There are probably more of those kind of people than overweight people who are incapable of understanding that a huge greasy burger and fries has more calories in it than a salad. I know there are people who need their hands holding, but no where near as many as those that don't.
Personally I think there are many more things that the government could be doing than dictating fast food portions!15 -
It doesn't seem to make sense. The things they listed aren't massively high in calories if you pair them with reasonable eating throughout the day. No idea if they're typical but if not then why are they there?
I think asking chain restaurants to list nutritional information is fine, because it can be done centrally, but it will be a large burden on smaller places. Knowing the calories won't help if people don't know how many they personally can have - I'm wondering who this average woman is! 2000 calories maintains my current weight, which is far too much...4 -
I think people have proven too dumb to rule themselves, but Big Brother is not a great answer.14
-
I don't think it's a good idea. 1 meal or 1 really high calorie item won't ruin a diet. It's repetitive over eating that impacts one's health.
From the article:
Health officials believe the move is needed as people are consuming 200 to 300 calories too many each day.
That looks like repetitive overeating.8 -
So it sounds like portion sizes will become smaller? What's stopping people from just eating two portion sizes then, to make up the size difference?16
-
Rosemary7391 wrote: »It doesn't seem to make sense. The things they listed aren't massively high in calories if you pair them with reasonable eating throughout the day. No idea if they're typical but if not then why are they there?
I think asking chain restaurants to list nutritional information is fine, because it can be done centrally, but it will be a large burden on smaller places. Knowing the calories won't help if people don't know how many they personally can have - I'm wondering who this average woman is! 2000 calories maintains my current weight, which is far too much...
I agree, I looked at the calorie counts and thought I could easily fit most of them into even a 1200 calorie plan (with the possible exception of the pizza, and I don't think the Krispy Kreme would be worth it).2 -
The UKs published expenditure in the NHS to treat obesity and the projected figures indicate that the impact of people needing medical attention due to obesity-related illness is less than paying pensions into old age as many will die much younger due to their lifestyle and therefore cost the government less in the long run.
Putting it bluntly and synically, the UK government is unliley to back plans to control people's eating habits as it costs less to have people die young with obesity-related illnesses than it does to have them drawing pensions into old age.
They already back-tracked significantly on proposed sugar taxes, so I wouldn't put too much faith in the government now or in the future when it comes to making changes to try and force people to eat better.6 -
A bigger issue is a lack of choice. I spent 3 days at the F1 earlier this year. The only food available on site was shockingly high in calories. I could barely find a piece of fruit everything was fried, battered or smothered in cheese. I didn't need smaller portions of the crap I needed an alternative. It is the same in all sorts of concerts, festivals and such like.11
-
What about those whose job involves hard physical labor and they require high calorie food? Are they going to have to buy two lunches now to get through the rest of the day just because others have no self control?6
-
This article was on the BBC this morning about the UK government setting targets to reduce the calories in fast food and ready meals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40967300
Responses on Facebook were very negative with people feeling that this was too 'nanny-state' but I can see the benefits. It is difficult to make healthy decisions on convenience food when you only have an array of high calorie options. Bringing down he calories and portion sizes as a whole will help people make better decisions.
However, I believe that at a less controversial move would simply be to provide the nutritional information so that customers can make an informed choice. Some restaurant chains in the UK do this but the vast majority do not. Then you can make people more aware of how many calories they are consuming but they are allowed to make their own choice in whether to overindulge.
What do you think?
This. Personal responsibility, not government control or regulation.7 -
IMHO just better availability of calorie counts would help - they are slowly improving, but yeah4
-
Couldn't be against it much more but providing the calorie information should already be happening. Luckily I live in the US. I don't think it's the Govt's place at all people should make informed decisions and live with it.3
-
The can limit size all they want, people will just order and eat two meals. In the US, all the calories are listed on the menu, both in sit down restaurants and drive thrus. I find having the calories right there to be very helpful.7
-
robm1brown wrote: »A bigger issue is a lack of choice. I spent 3 days at the F1 earlier this year. The only food available on site was shockingly high in calories. I could barely find a piece of fruit everything was fried, battered or smothered in cheese. I didn't need smaller portions of the crap I needed an alternative. It is the same in all sorts of concerts, festivals and such like.
But it's not like that's what you have to choose from every single day. Perspective. I am surprised though that there wasn't a vegetarian or vegan stand, every event I've been to has had one and the options there are generally a lot less calorie dense.
But back to the OP. There are pluses and minuses. Chocolate bars have already shrunk over the years due to profit margins. But other foods have crept up like the burgers etc. Fact of the matter though is that if someone wants to overeat, they will. Single bag of crisps too small? Well I'll just have two or add in another snack with it.
There's already a vast array of "healthy" choice alternatives in British supermarkets, from ready meals to desserts to snacks. If people aren't choosing those or eating them in appropriate quantities then neither will legislating for manufacturers to produce smaller serving sizes. And lots of people do still home cook so there's nothing to be done about that from a legislation point of view, unless they start asking how many people you're cooking for and only sell you that amount. Which is clearly bonkers.
They should be investing time and money in education instead in my opinion. And introduce a lot more PE as part of the school curriculum.3 -
I am largely in agreement with what most people are saying. I think having choice is the most important thing. Given the choice, people who want to make healthier food choices will do so the majority of the time. For those who do not want to make those choices, that is up to them.
But I definitely stand my statement that we need to be given the calorie content of food in order to make these choices. I don't think this would be too difficult for small businesses.; If I can do it at home using the recipe builder on MFP why couldn't they do something similar with each new item on the menu? Obviously you are never going to get everything exactly the same each time, but an approximation is still useful.2 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »It doesn't seem to make sense. The things they listed aren't massively high in calories if you pair them with reasonable eating throughout the day. No idea if they're typical but if not then why are they there?
I think asking chain restaurants to list nutritional information is fine, because it can be done centrally, but it will be a large burden on smaller places. Knowing the calories won't help if people don't know how many they personally can have - I'm wondering who this average woman is! 2000 calories maintains my current weight, which is far too much...
True, if I ate 2000 calories a day without additional exercise I would be gaining at quite a steady rate! I am only 5"3 though.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »robm1brown wrote: »A bigger issue is a lack of choice. I spent 3 days at the F1 earlier this year. The only food available on site was shockingly high in calories. I could barely find a piece of fruit everything was fried, battered or smothered in cheese. I didn't need smaller portions of the crap I needed an alternative. It is the same in all sorts of concerts, festivals and such like.
But it's not like that's what you have to choose from every single day. Perspective. I am surprised though that there wasn't a vegetarian or vegan stand, every event I've been to has had one and the options there are generally a lot less calorie dense.
But back to the OP. There are pluses and minuses. Chocolate bars have already shrunk over the years due to profit margins. But other foods have crept up like the burgers etc. Fact of the matter though is that if someone wants to overeat, they will. Single bag of crisps too small? Well I'll just have two or add in another snack with it.
There's already a vast array of "healthy" choice alternatives in British supermarkets, from ready meals to desserts to snacks. If people aren't choosing those or eating them in appropriate quantities then neither will legislating for manufacturers to produce smaller serving sizes. And lots of people do still home cook so there's nothing to be done about that from a legislation point of view, unless they start asking how many people you're cooking for and only sell you that amount. Which is clearly bonkers.
They should be investing time and money in education instead in my opinion. And introduce a lot more PE as part of the school curriculum.
Urrgh not PE! Just kidding. Sort of. In all honesty I hated PE at school and it put me off exercise for a good few years after. I would rather follow a program at the gym or go for a run than always be in competition with others which stressed me out. But maybe that is the nature of teenagers rather than PE.4 -
In California, just about every major restaurant posts "approximate" calories counts of foods on the menu.This article was on the BBC this morning about the UK government setting targets to reduce the calories in fast food and ready meals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40967300
Responses on Facebook were very negative with people feeling that this was too 'nanny-state' but I can see the benefits. It is difficult to make healthy decisions on convenience food when you only have an array of high calorie options. Bringing down he calories and portion sizes as a whole will help people make better decisions.
However, I believe that at a less controversial move would simply be to provide the nutritional information so that customers can make an informed choice. Some restaurant chains in the UK do this but the vast majority do not. Then you can make people more aware of how many calories they are consuming but they are allowed to make their own choice in whether to overindulge.
What do you think?
And people are still fat. Why? Because they still don't understand how calories work. People who are concerned will read it. The majority don't. And most people if going into the fast food or chain restaurant want the burger and not the salad.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
People don't have to eat the whole meal. If they exercised a little self control and saved half of it for later this wouldn't be an issue. I get a footlong sub at subway, eat half of it and bring the other half home. Much cheaper than buying 2 six inch subs. I don't want the government banning footlong subs.2
-
Most nutritional information is readily available, people just choose to ignore it.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html2 -
Firstly it is VOLUNTARY for the food industry. A similar move for reducing salt in ready meals etc. in the UK has proved successful, reduced the amount of salt people eat and is estimated to have saved many thousands of lives.
I think if you see people falling off a cliff then you construct a fence - as well as educating people.
We all know that people will eat up a portion - I for one never leave say 10% of a ready meal - although if it was 10% smaller I would be just as happy. Fat, salt and sugar are often all cheap ways for the food industry to make a quick buck.
We don't complain that McDonald's, Coca Cola etc. are being nannies spending millions and deploying lots of tactics getting us to buy their food but we do moan for some reason about a nanny state when the government (that is us acting collectively) counteract them a bit to try and improve our health.9 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »Most nutritional information is readily available, people just choose to ignore it.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html
Most nutritional information is definitely not available. You linked to the US McDonalds site which is no good for the UK as menus and portion sizes are different. Coincidentally, McDonalds is one of the places that does provide this information but it is one of few.
This is the full list for anyone that is interested.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Out-and-about/Restaurant-hitlist/2 -
I find that most people choose to ignore the calorie content of foods that are posted on menus . They want what they want and don't want to pay attention to the portion sizes. I bet when portion sizes decrease they wont decrease the prices though6
-
You can still use the same nutritional calculator unless a Big Mac is a different size in the UKpeckchris3267 wrote: »Most nutritional information is readily available, people just choose to ignore it.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html
Most nutritional information is definitely not available. You linked to the US McDonalds site which is no good for the UK as menus and portion sizes are different. Coincidentally, McDonalds is one of the places that does provide this information but it is one of few.
This is the full list for anyone that is interested.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Out-and-about/Restaurant-hitlist/
1 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
You can still use the same nutritional calculator unless a Big Mac is a different size in the UKpeckchris3267 wrote: »Most nutritional information is readily available, people just choose to ignore it.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html
Most nutritional information is definitely not available. You linked to the US McDonalds site which is no good for the UK as menus and portion sizes are different. Coincidentally, McDonalds is one of the places that does provide this information but it is one of few.
This is the full list for anyone that is interested.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Out-and-about/Restaurant-hitlist/
UK McDonalds does provide the info, she agreed with that. The calorie counts are different though to the US.
The point was a lot of restaurants, not just independents, don't provide calorie counts. I don't eat at many big chains so I don't know if they even put the calories on the menus or if you have to go to the website.1 -
This article was on the BBC this morning about the UK government setting targets to reduce the calories in fast food and ready meals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40967300
Responses on Facebook were very negative with people feeling that this was too 'nanny-state' but I can see the benefits. It is difficult to make healthy decisions on convenience food when you only have an array of high calorie options. Bringing down he calories and portion sizes as a whole will help people make better decisions.
However, I believe that at a less controversial move would simply be to provide the nutritional information so that customers can make an informed choice. Some restaurant chains in the UK do this but the vast majority do not. Then you can make people more aware of how many calories they are consuming but they are allowed to make their own choice in whether to overindulge. Hell, I used to do this when I was a teenager - the small burgers at Micky-d's were much cheaper than the quarter pounder or the big mac, so I could get 3-4 of those small burgers for roughly the same price as the bigger burgers (and get a LOT more food in the process).
What do you think?
They tried this same sort of thing in NYC by banning the sale of sodas over a certain size. Guess what happened - people started buying several of the smaller size sodas and actually ended up with more soda than the single large size...
Education and having informed choices are the way to go - not more nanny-state interference in personal choice/responsibility.7 -
Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.
Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).
The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
You can still use the same nutritional calculator unless a Big Mac is a different size in the UKpeckchris3267 wrote: »Most nutritional information is readily available, people just choose to ignore it.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html
Most nutritional information is definitely not available. You linked to the US McDonalds site which is no good for the UK as menus and portion sizes are different. Coincidentally, McDonalds is one of the places that does provide this information but it is one of few.
This is the full list for anyone that is interested.
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Out-and-about/Restaurant-hitlist/
UK McDonalds does provide the info, she agreed with that. The calorie counts are different though to the US.
The point was a lot of restaurants, not just independents, don't provide calorie counts. I don't eat at many big chains so I don't know if they even put the calories on the menus or if you have to go to the website.
Well, if someone chooses to eat a majority of their meals at a restaurant then they are making a poor health and financial choice.
I occasionally eat at a restaurant and make the best choices I can but I'm not worried about getting fat over it.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Quick serve (places like Pret a Manger, which is a UK based chain, I think) typically all have calories posted where I am (Chicago). I like that, since I think it results in them having a number of lower cal options.
Local places (non chains) don't, and I think that's fine -- too much burden for them as they change the menu more and nothing is standardized, and no one has to go there if seeing calories is a premium (and they will generally answer questions about how things are made in a way you don't get at a quick serve place).
The problem with giant serving sizes in many places is because of consumer demand -- people want "value." Does it make sense to basically say "in the current world it's not in your best interest since too many people are fat, sorry"? It rubs me the wrong way, but if the UK wants to experiment with it and see how it goes, I don't care.
This. I don't think the problem is that the portions are too large (there are smaller portion options available like a plain hamburger) or that the information isn't available, the problem is that people either don't care or don't know enough about energy balance to put it into use.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions