Government control of portion sizes and calories

peckchris3267 wrote: »

NYC also banned trans fats from fast food restaurants.
So I never buy the argument that "it would never happen".

peckchris3267 wrote: »

NYC also banned trans fats from fast food restaurants.
So I never buy the argument that "it would never happen".

I bet they banned using arsenic in flour as a flour treatment agent to make it whiter in NYC too. This is obviously an inevitable slippery slope to banning all fflour itself.


I'm being sarcastic, by the way.

Banning a particular ingredient is nothing like making it illegal to sell big sandwiches. The voluntary regulation in the UK's fast food sector will just see more large chains visibly displaying calorie counts. Market forces will push other chains into displaying the calorie counts for their menus, and then all that will naturally lead to a bit of rejigging of recipes to bring the calorie counts down. A tablespoonful less of oil here, a bit less sugar there.

You know, just as thousands do at home, with their own home cooking, because modern apps like MFP have made it easy for the calorie-minded consumer to see and calculate the impact little adjustments like that will make, without affecting taste.

In the UK, the public conversation is not blaming increased obesity on the availability of footlong subs. There is no public appetite for banning footlong Veggie Delites, and no governmental interest in such. For the record, we have a right-wing party in government, and that is not the kind of political stance with which it is associated!

While there shouldn't be government control of how much food a person is allowed to buy or consume, both the retailer and the government have a role in informing (educating) the literal consumer about what constitutes a serve of a particular food.

This is already included in the nutritional information table on packaged foods. I think it's reasonable that this same 'per serve' and 'gross' nutritional values are available to people when they purchase take away (etc) so they can make informed decisions about their intake.

Most restaurants that are not required to, would not want to put their calorie information out for the customer to see. I recently ate at a sit down restaurant and asked if they had the nutritional information and the waiter just laughed and said maybe it's on the website, but that he had no clue. (It was not on the website--I checked before I even went to the restaurant). I've stopped eating out much because I can't even estimate how many calories are in the meals. The portions are huge in my area and I don't think that they want to advertise that the meal most people are eating in one sitting has 1800 calories in it!

mandrewes wrote: »

I am shocked, surprised and rather disappointed with the level of vitriol over ths

Annoyance, disappointment, disbelief, and all around "boo on this"? Sure. But "vitriol"? Im really not seeing that in the responses. Many people here simply seem to believe there are better ways to tackle the issue.

No. I like the huge portion sizes. I can make one take away do three meals.

The calorie counts given in that article are suspiciously low.

Sorry trying again pressed the wrong button!

I am shocked, surprised and somewhat disappointed at the level of vitriol directed at this proposal on a forum about dieting, health and fitness.

It is voluntary - that means food manufacturers do not have to do it! They can still sell their mega calorie loaded extravaganza if that is what they want to do.

A classic tip for people dieting is to get smaller plates. I think there was a study - it was mentioned I believe in the video on YouTube on the AtoZ study ("is anyone winning at loosing") that gave people 20% smaller portions without them knowing and they were just as satisfied. Famously people will eat up stale popcorn until it is gone partly just because it is there!

Sure some people might eat more but if their big macs and ready meals contain 10%-20% fewer calories most will probably just eat 10%-20% fewer calories.

The arguments were used about taking salt out of processed food (on a voluntary basis) - it was said people will just add it back in and it is up to people to take responsibility. But it has proved successful in the UK and is saving thousands of lives a year and stopping people getting things like strokes which devastate their lives. http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/UK Salt Reduction Programme/145617.html

A typical rhetorical device is to say what about other measures - education and personal responsibility, labelling.

It is not an either/or choice but a both/and choice.

The UK has some pretty good public education programmes Such as "one you" www.nhs.uk/oneyou and swapping out sugar campaign. And labelling is very good in supermarkets in the UK but could be better in chain restaurants and takeaways especially as regards availability.

I appreciate that many Americans feel that anything that smacks of big government is by definition bad but food is subject to many laws, rules and regulations as we want our food to be safe and hygienic.

If you saw someone being attacked by lions you might just grab a gun and shoot the lions.

If thousands of planes were falling out of the sky and killing and maiming millions then people would demand government action and regulation to make things safer.

We are being pursued by lions - it is just slowly and it is by excess weight.

Millions of people are dying early and suffering from heart disease because of being overweight.

Now clearly it needs a multi-prong approach.

But the evidence is give someone two identical looking meals - one with 10% fewer calories then they will feel just as satiated. The difference being if they eat 10% fewer calories they may well not become obese and then suffer from type 2 diabetes, heart attacks or strokes.

VintageFeline wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

peckchris3267 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

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.

And if I want a double quarter pounder and large fries I should be allowed to buy it without government restrictions.

The GB challenge with this is the government pays 80%+ of healthcare costs and it's going broke. If someone is going to get services from an organization, it is probably that organization's right to make restrictions on things that impact its costs.

It's not going broke, it's underfunded. Vast difference. We have a predominantly right wing press in the UK and a conservative government at the moment who would love it if healthcare was privatised. Making the NHS look like it's failing is a nifty way to make it happen.

fwiw it is unaffordable, as well as poorly managed. Given the growth in treatment options available the cost base is perpetually growing. At some point I think we're likely to see a debate around what services should be free at the point of consumption and which aren't.

I'd also observe that preventive treatments are much more difficult to prescribe, and given the taxpayers equity dimension it becomes very difficult to argue that money should be spent in that way, when our public debate is simplistic.

HeliumIsNoble wrote: »

Source: I fricking live in the UK, and I know how government regulation works here.

But the point is not to have a grown up debate about this when one can have some foaming at the mouth ill informed reactionary rhetoric.

jesspen91 wrote: »

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?

For a start what doesn't help any informed debate is the suggestion that an advisory agency is " the government". Notwithstanding that HMG isn't a single entity, but rather a collection of mutually competitive fiefdoms, the role of PHE is to set guidelines. Given that both Tory and Labour party philosophies tend towards the interventionist the greater concern is the suggestion that if voluntary uptake isn't good enough then legislation will follow. Neither majority party will challenge the need for legislation, they'll fiddle round the edge of it gets to that stage.

Regardless, the guidelines do move the public health debate on from a very simplistic focus on single ingredients; salt, sugar etc. That in itself is a good thing, although I'd suggest that it doesn't move it in very far.

In the debate we've got two dimensions; quantity and quality. This recognises that quantity is a factor that needs to be thought about. Having that public debate is a good thing, but the nature of the debate is simplistic and nonsensical. Quality of media coverage is poor across the board. In terms of my own positioning, I'm an Economist reader...

From my own perspective I don't see the intervention as all that useful, although I do see some of these portion sizes as already quite small. I'll do a McDonald's breakfast after Parkrun and I'm only getting 550 calories out of a portion. Skimming 50 off that isn't going to have a huge impact on me. That said, I'm generally the only person in there in running kit, having just burned off 300 calories.

We do have a growing public health liability around obesity, and weight related chronic conditions. Given that we have a system of primary and acute care that is free at the point of consumption it's a legitimate debate to have. It becomes about where to place investment decisions, and how far upstream the public health system has a liability for investment.

Given that both Tory and Labour party philosophies tend towards the interventionist the greater concern is the suggestion that if voluntary uptake isn't good enough then legislation will follow. Neither majority party will challenge the need for legislation, they'll fiddle round the edge of it gets to that stage

I think the bigger concern is that the governments of all descriptions don't deal firmly enough with the food industry and we are not talking legislation but backsliding from the food industry in agreements they have signed with the government. They are a powerful lobby and they want to protect their profits which is legitimate in a capitalist system but it does impact on public health.

From my own perspective I don't see the intervention as all that useful, although I do see some of these portion sizes as already quite small. I'll do a McDonald's breakfast after Parkrun and I'm only getting 550 calories out of a portion. Skimming 50 off that isn't going to have a huge impact on me. That said, I'm generally the only person in there in running kit, having just burned off 300 calories

If someone is now eating 10% less - say for sake of argument 2000 cals is their maintenance and they are now eating that rather than 2200 then that is 20lbs less in weight in a year which might save someone from type 2 diabetes, strokes, heart disease.

Of course designing policies that affect potentially the whole population is a challenge - adding vitamins to foods for example. For example virtually all milk (99%) in the US is fortified with vitamin D but not in the UK.

But the reduction in salt saving thousands of lives shows what can be achieved voluntarily and not affecting all sectors and types of food.