U.K food makers told to cut calories by 20%
Replies
-
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.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream 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.0 -
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.
My Dad raised me and my brother on his own, on benefits with no other help. He cooked and baked most meals from scratch, made his own bread and anything else he could. We had well balanced, healthy meals because even though we hardly had any money he wanted to make sure we got the right nutrition and a well balanced diet. If we wanted sweets, or "junk food" we could use our pocket money, and we soon realised we would rather spend our money on something else that wouldn't be gone in a matter of seconds. We went without other things instead. I'm not saying everyone should do this, but a lot of people put other things first rather than a healthy diet, like having the latest mobile phone, a big screen TV, Sky TV instead of Freeview, smoking, alcohol etc. things like this. I was never overweight as a child. I was as an adult when I had more money.5 -
LivingtheLeanDream 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.
Herm, I think Sainsbury's was one that I looked into but discounted because the minimum spend was more than I spend in a week, and I usually go grocery shopping 1-2 times a week in order to have plenty of fresh fruit and veg. The fridge-freezer in my flat was tiny, so I couldn't stock up on frozen veg, unfortunately (if I had a pound for every time someone told me that the best way to eat healthy on a budget was to make extra and freeze it ... well, I wouldn't have had to eat on a budget, then).
How did this thread become about poverty and judging what poor people eat, anyway? I know a LOT of educated middle-class people who rely on ready meals and packaged food. They can afford to eat healthy, they have the time/transportation to go to a grocery store, the resources to learn how to cook, and yet they still buy ready meals and bags of crisps and have fizzy drinks with their meals (seriously, people, Irn Bru is not a food group
). Oh, and a lot of them hate vegetables because their experiences with school dinners led them to believe that vegetables have to be boiled to *kittens* until all sense of flavour or texture is lost. When I was a programmer, a typical lunch amongst my colleagues was something like cheese and ham sandwich on white bread, a bag of crisps, and a bottle of fizzy - and perhaps an apple or banana on the side if they were trying to be healthy. I ate far, far better than that when I was unemployed and spending 30 quid a week on food. It's not fair to judge poor people for not eating healthily when the behaviours we're judging them for are rampant amongst well-off, educated people.
11 -
My Dad raised me and my brother on his own, on benefits with no other help. He cooked and baked most meals from scratch, made his own bread and anything else he could. We had well balanced, healthy meals because even though we hardly had any money he wanted to make sure we got the right nutrition and a well balanced diet. If we wanted sweets, or "junk food" we could use our pocket money, and we soon realised we would rather spend our money on something else that wouldn't be gone in a matter of seconds. We went without other things instead. I'm not saying everyone should do this, but a lot of people put other things first rather than a healthy diet, like having the latest mobile phone, a big screen TV, Sky TV instead of Freeview, smoking, alcohol etc. things like this. I was never overweight as a child. I was as an adult when I had more money.
Just as a side note: You see that "The POOR spend all their money on flat screen TV's and IPHONES" that's propaganda fed through the media to justify tearing down the welfare state and social security nets, it's not real.
Even if it was real, poor people also deserve nice things sometimes. This is a really ugly attitude and not even what the thread is about.17 -
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.0
-
I'm sorry, how did this become about food deserts or the behavior of poor people???
Obesity is a problem in 1st world countries across the board - wealthy, poor, male, female, young, old etc. But why deal with the problem when we can pick sides either complaining about how it's not people's fault they are obese the big food companies tricked them, or it is all because poor people are lazy I guess?
The injection of overly-emotional moral judgements into government issues is one of the reasons most of our governing bodies accomplish practically nothing at this point, but I should probably get off my soapbox. I still don't think changing the number of calories per serving will accomplish anything. If governments want to do something about the obesity epidemic, I have to think education is the way to go. But the real change has to happen inside people's homes and their heads.
Edited because I'm bad at spelling when I'm pissed
8 -
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.'"
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream 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.2 -
Please tell me you’re not reasoning that people are poor because they lack the self discipline to save money.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.
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.
4 -
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.
Not in my part of the U.S. you can't (nor for the equivalent in dollars).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.
How do you do a "big shop" when you have to lug all that food home over two or three bus transfers and and a quarter mile walk at the last stop to home?7 -
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 get my shop at Asda for £1 on an evening and it's an hour delivery slot and £25 minimum spend. You can book a delivery slot weeks in advance too. You see there's always a way if people are willing to put in the effort, but a lot of people come up with silly excuses as to why they can't eat healthy, when in fact they just don't want to.
That's outside the means of many.
7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
How do you do a "big shop" when you have to lug all that food home over two or three bus transfers and and a quarter mile walk at the last stop to home?
You do what I did when I was at university - use a rucksack of some sort. Or there's the option of the wheely trolley/bag things that stereotypically old people use. I see plenty of people on busses around here using both options. Or like others have mentioned, home delivery here is pretty cheap.
4 -
Who sits down and does studies and comes up with this idea? Remember when you use to pay like .25 and get this huge candy bar. However now that size no longer exists cause the shrink the size and raise the price.
Your just gonna make them make things even smaller. I understand the idea seems great, but the problem is people even myself would not care and eat a whole lot more then a serving anyways.
Simple if 100 grams is a serving you simply say 80 grams is a serving and let the consumer decide.1 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/06/food-makers-told-to-cut-calories-by-20-by-2024
I think it would serve better if people were educated in portion sizes and learn to know calories in foods in general and how much their bodies need to maintain their weight. Also if portion sizes in restaurants/cafes were kept more realistic too - people in general don't seem to know what a normal portion size should be.
IMO knowledge of the amount of calories leads to overall better choices (its the reason I have been maintaining an almost 30lbs weight loss for 5 years).
I appreciate that you're reflecting a media article on the subject, rather than elaborating on the reality, but this is a single installment of a public health programs that's been going on over the last two parliaments.
PHE have been running an educational agenda, with a combination of calorie control, did choice and exercise, for about five or six years.1 -
Cherimoose wrote: »The pity is that those on low income can't really afford to eat healthily, they eat cheap, filling, fattening food. It isn't only down to education but also to disposable income. My experience is in the UK, could this be the case in the US also?
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.
OP - I agree. Our government used to make health recommendations - now they go straight to coercion and taking money.
Ahh yes, since we see obesity only affects the poor! What a ridiculous thing to say, as if poor people by nature are too lazy to cook healthy or too stupid to know better.
Many people, especially in rural areas, don’t have access to transportation or live in a food desert so they don’t have ready access to healthy food. Hell, in college when my car was stolen my only option for food shopping was a stop n go for a few weeks, and that was not healthy even if I tried.8 -
jbrown2339 wrote: »Ahh yes, since we see obesity only affects the poor! What a ridiculous thing to say, as if poor people by nature are too lazy to cook healthy or too stupid to know better.
Well, all humans are lazy and do stupid things. But it seems you misunderstood my point. I explained it further in a follow-up post: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/41566693/#Comment_41566693
And just to clarify, i subscribe to the view that obesity is from a calorie surplus, not from eating foods perceived as unhealthy.3 -
thegeordielass wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
How do you do a "big shop" when you have to lug all that food home over two or three bus transfers and and a quarter mile walk at the last stop to home?
You do what I did when I was at university - use a rucksack of some sort. Or there's the option of the wheely trolley/bag things that stereotypically old people use. I see plenty of people on busses around here using both options. Or like others have mentioned, home delivery here is pretty cheap.
The post I was responding to (not yours) said to do a big shop for the whole month. About the only affordable things I might be able to manage a full month's worth of eating that would fit in a rucksack or even a roll-away cart that I could manage the weight of would be dry rice, dry beans, dry oatmeal ... basically, foods that will get their bulk from my adding water to them when I get them home. Not horrible, but not exactly a well-rounded diet. And that's assuming that I (the hypothetical poor person you all are imagining who's too lazy or stupid to eat "healthy") have running water, electricity or gas, and a stove in whatever rental space I can afford (and assuming that I have stable housing at all).
Grocery home delivery here is not "pretty cheap." And the cheapest options that are available are only that cheap because it's an app-based service (like Uber for groceries) that totally exploits the workers, so to get the cheap delivery, you have to be OK with not adequately tipping someone who isn't even getting paid enough to cover the gas they're using to deliver the food to you.9 -
I get that bit.
The only stuff I buy monthly is annoyingly bulky but light stuff such as toilet roll/cleaning products.
I was just responding to the trying to get things home with several bus changes etc. That bit is completely possible.lynn_glenmont wrote: »l
Grocery home delivery here is not "pretty cheap." And the cheapest options that are available are only that cheap because it's an app-based service (like Uber for groceries) that totally exploits the workers, so to get the cheap delivery, you have to be OK with not adequately tipping someone who isn't even getting paid enough to cover the gas they're using to deliver the food to you.
Home delivery here is done via the supermarket websites/apps and having had a sister who worked in the home shopping department for 3 years, I can assure you that everyone is paid the living wage (if that's enough or not is an entirely different subject). The groceries are delivered in the home delivery vans which are owned and run by the supermarkets. Nobody needs to pay for any petrol or get tips themselves (I don't think I ever heard my sister say anyone ever got a tip - not really a thing here and as there's a minimum living wage all employers have to pay, not needed like I gather it is for waitressing in the US). Things must be very different in other countries.5 -
It's not easy to cook when you work 90 hour weeks. My mom would go months without a single day off routinely, but yeah totally she was just lazy poor person.7
-
thegeordielass wrote: »I get that bit. The only stuff I buy monthly is annoyingly bulky but light stuff such as toilet roll/cleaning products.
I was just responding to the trying to get things home with several bus changes etc. That bit is completely possible.lynn_glenmont wrote: »l
Grocery home delivery here is not "pretty cheap." And the cheapest options that are available are only that cheap because it's an app-based service (like Uber for groceries) that totally exploits the workers, so to get the cheap delivery, you have to be OK with not adequately tipping someone who isn't even getting paid enough to cover the gas they're using to deliver the food to you.
Home delivery here is done via the supermarket websites/apps and having had a sister who worked in the home shopping department for 3 years, I can assure you that everyone is paid the living wage (if that's enough or not is an entirely different subject). The groceries are delivered in the home delivery vans which are owned and run by the supermarkets. Nobody needs to pay for any petrol or get tips themselves (I don't think I ever heard my sister say anyone ever got a tip - not really a thing here and as there's a minimum living wage all employers have to pay, not needed like I gather it is for waitressing in the US). Things must be very different in other countries.
This isn't true in the USA tho which you keep failing to understand. This is why you have to stop generalizing that your reality can measure against anothers. That's what people do when they assume everyone can eat healthy or that its easy for them to do so. Actually, a poster child for the exact opposite of your beliefs.1 -
M
Just because you can see a statistical trend between two sets of data doesn’t mean there’s a cause and effect relationship between them. Your logic would also suggest that ice cream causes drowning, because incidents of drowning rise at the same time as an increase in ice cream sales.Cherimoose wrote: »
Please tell me you’re not reasoning that people are poor because they lack the self discipline to save money.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.
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.
3 -
Fizzypopization wrote: »thegeordielass wrote: »I get that bit. The only stuff I buy monthly is annoyingly bulky but light stuff such as toilet roll/cleaning products.
I was just responding to the trying to get things home with several bus changes etc. That bit is completely possible.lynn_glenmont wrote: »l
Grocery home delivery here is not "pretty cheap." And the cheapest options that are available are only that cheap because it's an app-based service (like Uber for groceries) that totally exploits the workers, so to get the cheap delivery, you have to be OK with not adequately tipping someone who isn't even getting paid enough to cover the gas they're using to deliver the food to you.
Home delivery here is done via the supermarket websites/apps and having had a sister who worked in the home shopping department for 3 years, I can assure you that everyone is paid the living wage (if that's enough or not is an entirely different subject). The groceries are delivered in the home delivery vans which are owned and run by the supermarkets. Nobody needs to pay for any petrol or get tips themselves (I don't think I ever heard my sister say anyone ever got a tip - not really a thing here and as there's a minimum living wage all employers have to pay, not needed like I gather it is for waitressing in the US). Things must be very different in other countries.
This isn't true in the USA tho which you keep failing to understand.
Given that the original post alluded to an initiative by Public Health England, I'd suggest it might be more meaningful to consider the challenges in the UK...8 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »Fizzypopization wrote: »thegeordielass wrote: »I get that bit. The only stuff I buy monthly is annoyingly bulky but light stuff such as toilet roll/cleaning products.
I was just responding to the trying to get things home with several bus changes etc. That bit is completely possible.lynn_glenmont wrote: »l
Grocery home delivery here is not "pretty cheap." And the cheapest options that are available are only that cheap because it's an app-based service (like Uber for groceries) that totally exploits the workers, so to get the cheap delivery, you have to be OK with not adequately tipping someone who isn't even getting paid enough to cover the gas they're using to deliver the food to you.
Home delivery here is done via the supermarket websites/apps and having had a sister who worked in the home shopping department for 3 years, I can assure you that everyone is paid the living wage (if that's enough or not is an entirely different subject). The groceries are delivered in the home delivery vans which are owned and run by the supermarkets. Nobody needs to pay for any petrol or get tips themselves (I don't think I ever heard my sister say anyone ever got a tip - not really a thing here and as there's a minimum living wage all employers have to pay, not needed like I gather it is for waitressing in the US). Things must be very different in other countries.
This isn't true in the USA tho which you keep failing to understand.
Given that the original post alluded to an initiative by Public Health England, I'd suggest it might be more meaningful to consider the challenges in the UK...
Home delivery costs for groceries varies quite a bit in the US. So far, the costs quoted for the UK have not been uniformly low, although we have one example of low costs. Also, here, it's cheaper if you get a minimum amount or sign up for a program that make costs higher upfront, and we have some confirmation that's also true in the UK.
Unless someone wants to quote a source showing that there's uniformly cheap grocery delivery everywhere in the UK, I'm not convinced we have enough information to conclude that that's the case (let alone a basis for the judgment going on upthread).
I will also note that the judgy-ness in question was NOT seeming to limit it to poor people in the UK, so pointing out that poor people in other places face issues is responsive.
But sure, I'd love to see you address the comments in question from a UK perspective if you think we Americans should have nothing to say. I will quote them in my next post. (I will also note that in that this is one option for addressing obesity, a problem for many countries, analyzing a program one country is trying is relevant, especially since such programs sometimes get adopted elsewhere.)2 -
And here are the comments we were saying were not true for all.You can tell people till you're blue in the face about obesity dangers some will listen some won't. Some people want to educate themselves and their children and some don't. In this day & age most people have the tools to know or find out about calories, nutrition etc but don't bother. You can't force people to eat healthy or eat a certain amount, in the end it all comes down to choice. Just like people smoke, take drugs, drink alcohol knowing the dangers. Teach kids in schools etc then let them make their own choices. Sadly most will choose not to worry about it till it's too late.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.
I assumed the argument here was that the public initiative was pointless and should not be done, that getting companies to address products is irrelevant since people just make their choices and make bad ones in many cases and so doing more was hopeless.
Perhaps I misinterpreted.
Anyway, if you think only UK people should respond, MeanderingMammal, I will be quiet and leave it to you all.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But sure, I'd love to see you address the comments in question from a UK perspective if you think we Americans should have nothing to say.
I would observe that those outside the US are well used to being dismissed from debates in many forums, however, that was not my intent. I appreciate that I've stepped in between two respondents being obnoxious to one another. I'd also observe that those two appear to be talking about different things.
I'd note that the comparison of food/ grocery delivery pricing in the US and the UK, in the context of contribution to cost of living and public health, is broadly irrelevant. I was going to address those points more directly when I was on something easier to type on than my mobile phone.
Our geographic challenges around supply chain are very different, our employment legislation is very different, and our health industry is very different...analyzing a program one country is trying is relevant...
I would agree. Pity nobody is analysing it, merely recycling the same judgemental material about the feckless poor that we see repeated in many threads.
Obesity is not something restricted to the poor (whatever we happen to mean by that), so the initiative in question isn't targeted there. PHE does have initiatives focused on low income and areas of extreme poverty, sometimes delivered under their own branding, sometimes presented under other services as part of a coherent approach.
I can elaborate, in direct response to some of the observations in thread.
It's unfortunate you've read something into my statement that wasn't intended, I will acknowledge it was a little blunt in response to what I saw as more US-centrism.
1 -
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.
Notwithstanding that the initiative from PHE is around calorie intake, and complimentary to a number of their other initiatives around improved labelling, education and macro-nutrient contribution, we're seeing this debate turn again to the poor. As ever with this debate, with an implied and lazy.
Looking at the specifics here, if we're thinking about those below or near the poverty line, there are significant challenges to eating well. Many of us in here are comfortable with the concept that it's about a balance between calorie intake and calorie output, but if we look at media coverage that's never the answer. The challenge of managing CICO becomes lost in promotion of the right foods, or magic potions, or paying someone else to do the thinking for you; Weight Watchers. A fairly mundane message around CICO doesn't make money, and it becomes dependent on a public body to promote it. That public body doesn't have anything like the same marketing budget, so you're up against a lack of awareness.
That's before you get onto the question of cash flow. Doing a big shop once a month depends on having the cash to do that. Saving money is made much easier by having that money available in the first place. For grocery delivery costs around here range from £1 per slot if you're prepared to have a delivery at midnight, through to £8 if you want it on a Saturday late morning. Or you could spend £70 for an annual subscription and get your choice of slots at no extra cost. If you're looking at a £20 food budget then even £1 makes a good dent in that. If you've got that £80 all at once then the delivery charge isn't significant, but when budgeting looks like that, having that cash isn't likely.
That's even before you get to the reality of earning, so fitting purchasing, transporting and preparing food around working hours. Perhaps even having the confidence of getting the hours in the first place. I can see a situation where even if someone has that £80 available they don't have confidence that in a months time they'll have another £80. I don't, in principle, have a great issue with zero-hours contracts, but they can create significant uncertainty where they're badly used.
So going back to the latest addition to PHE guidance, there are two main components. The first is the headline grabber of intrusive government directing private businesses, the second being the recommendations on how to balance calorie intake through the day. I'd say the latter is more important.
PHE do promote the general DH recommendations of 2kcal/ 2.4kcal per day for women/ men, with a floor of 1.2kcal/ 1.6kcal for health. They've now added to that by suggesting a breakdown of 400/ 600/ 600 in main meals. You'll note that it then leaves somewhere between 400 and 800 discretionary calories. by it's nature it's very generic advice. They don't get into macro balance, although other elements of PHE guidance encourage intake of fruit/ veg and limitations on fats/ alcohols/ salt and sugar.
Then we move onto the headline component; restricting calories in prepared foods both food to order and ready meals. Again in context, not the huge scare story. They've identified that many of these products have an excessive calorie load, in conjunction with higher content of fats, salts and sugars. What they've said to multiple industries, is find a better balance.
These foods aren't the preserve of the poor, which makes the inevitable descent of these debates into finger pointing, puritanical, admonishment so profoundly depressing. Last night I had a pie that I'd bought from Waitrose, 752 kcals before adding any veg or rice. I'm comfortable making the judgement on whether it was right for me then, and it certainly was, but I'm pretty well informed. I could have expended the 1000kcal that I had for dinner on something quite unhealthy.
So I guess it comes down to whether an Arms Length Body have a role in providing guidance or not? From a personal perspective I'm less comfortable by the implied threats around reporting to government. Our current parliament is predominantly interventionist, on both sides of the house. It doesn't take much for them to start legislating in areas that they probably have no clear place in. Contrary to the headlines government hasn't told anyone to do anything, but there is a risk they may do at some point.5 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »But sure, I'd love to see you address the comments in question from a UK perspective if you think we Americans should have nothing to say.
I'd note that the comparison of food/ grocery delivery pricing in the US and the UK, in the context of contribution to cost of living and public health, is broadly irrelevant.
This, I agree with. (Although I so far have no reason to think it's as different as claimed.)
I also think the cost of food delivery in the UK more generally is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and I note it was not US participants who raised that topic, some merely responded to comments that were made in connection with those statements. I don't think you can blame US participants for that....analyzing a program one country is trying is relevant...
I would agree. Pity nobody is analysing it, merely recycling the same judgemental material about the feckless poor that we see repeated in many threads.[/quote]
I tried to turn the conversation back to that upthread, as well as noting that it was part of a broader plan (which you subsequently noted also). Here's what I said (feel free to discount it because American, obviously):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.'"
I realize that was not much of an analysis, it was more to try to focus on the topic.
If you have elaboration on what was reported, I'd love to discuss (or just read others discussing, given my nationality and all). Do you think the prior efforts have worked? I've read some mixed reports. Also do you have a sense of what the specific methodology would be to make companies comply?
I am not opposed to the idea that smaller serving sizes would cut back on calories consumed, personally, although I don't have a strong opinion about it.
(cont., because this is long)0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »]Obesity is not something restricted to the poor (whatever we happen to mean by that), so the initiative in question isn't targeted there. PHE does have initiatives focused on low income and areas of extreme poverty, sometimes delivered under their own branding, sometimes presented under other services as part of a coherent approach.
Again, the point about obesity NOT being an issue about the poor is also something I said above:Also, it's hardly like the obesity problem is limited to those of lower income.
What I saw (and why I got touchy, perhaps) was that a UK poster had reacted as if the topic was about poor people, US posters (among others) objected to that and said that the poster was being unfair to poor people (or something like that), and then you jumped in to tell the US posters that we didn't understand anything (when the poor people conversation was off topic -- not because of US posters -- and not specific to the UK).It's unfortunate you've read something into my statement that wasn't intended, I will acknowledge it was a little blunt in response to what I saw as more US-centrism.
I think you were reading that US-centrism in, personally, given the actual surrounding context (the statements about poor people were not UK specific, people in the US were saying that even if what was said was true for all the UK -- which, btw, still has not been convincingly demonstrated -- it's not true for the US (although I would add that you cannot generalize about the US, it's quite different from place to place). However, we don't have to argue about that.
I am actually interested in the real topic of the thread.2 -
So back to the topic:MeanderingMammal wrote: »So going back to the latest addition to PHE guidance, there are two main components. The first is the headline grabber of intrusive government directing private businesses, the second being the recommendations on how to balance calorie intake through the day. I'd say the latter is more important.
PHE do promote the general DH recommendations of 2kcal/ 2.4kcal per day for women/ men, with a floor of 1.2kcal/ 1.6kcal for health. They've now added to that by suggesting a breakdown of 400/ 600/ 600 in main meals. You'll note that it then leaves somewhere between 400 and 800 discretionary calories. by it's nature it's very generic advice. They don't get into macro balance, although other elements of PHE guidance encourage intake of fruit/ veg and limitations on fats/ alcohols/ salt and sugar.
For what it's worth, depending on how the regulations/encouragement of the food industry works, I'm not much bothered by that bit (I am skeptical about how useful it will be, but open enough to the idea that it might be that I'm willing for the UK to be a test case). I would be bothered by certain methods, but it seems like it's been more "we want you to do this" kind of encouragement rather than actual legislation so far. But that's where I don't know much about how it works.
What I found not the direct topic of the thread, but more objectionable when I read the Guardian article itself, was the part you are talking about here. I think the idea that everyone should have a set calorie aim for specific meals is just neither accurate nor realistic (even apart from the fact that not everyone has a similar calorie goal).
I would agree that people not knowing what a reasonable calorie amount is, is an issue, and I think the MyPlate initiative in the US tries to give an estimate (but no one knows about that here). Not sure if the initiative that we are discussing gets more public attention than similar things in the US, quite possibly. But that would be the weakness in what I see as the public education element (even apart from my thinking that 400/600/600 is a bad one-size-fits-all-women idea). Most of what MyPlate promotes is, IMO, good sense, but people either don't know about it or don't care (those who tend to follow health advice don't become more likely to because the gov't makes the advice).
NOT saying I'm against public health initiatives like that, just skeptical of how useful they will be.
1
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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