[Kiss]

Organisations representing nearly every doctor in the UK have united in a single campaign to tackle rising levels of obesity.

The campaign will start by reviewing the case for fat taxes, promoting exercise, restricting food advertising and other measures.

They criticised sponsorship of the Olympics by fast food firms as sending "the wrong message".

The Department of Health said it was taking action to combat obesity.

A spokesman for the campaign, Prof Terence Stephenson, said the government's current strategy of "partnering" food firms in order to tackle obesity "might be seen as counter-intuitive".

Recommendations could target food companies who sponsor major sporting events - such as the Olympics - and fast food outlets which operate close to schools.

Prof Stephenson said allowing companies such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds to sponsor the London 2012 Olympics "sends the wrong message."

"They clearly wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't benefit from being associated with successful athletes," he said.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17705228

Personally I agree with the sentiments made about the Olympics. It is such a bad message given off and it reflects poorly on the UK when the biggest fast-food chain is sponsoring of the biggest sporting events in the world:



What is your opinion?

[MissBlueskys]

I think it is a bit ridiculous to have a fast food chain sponsoring a sporting event. But in the end censoring advertisement is going to make no difference to the individual who is obese. Taxing fat people is also silly. I am not sure how to tackle obesity but I think neither of those will help. It needs to be more individual support and promoting of healthy diets and exercise among people (doctors/patients, parents, teachers). Fad diets and forcing people into extreme exercise for a short period wont help, we need longer term solutions about moderate diets and exercise people can cope with and keep up with for the rest of their lives.

[Algorithm69]

It is not the government's concern to tell us what to eat, or to try and force us to eat certain food through taxation. If you are really concerned about the impact obesity has on our taxes through the NHS, I have a solution: privatization, or at least let fatties foot the bill themselves. While we're at it, let's make pissheads pay for their stomach pumps too.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
It is not the government's concern to tell us what to eat, or to try and force us to eat certain food through taxation. If you are really concerned about the impact obesity has on our taxes through the NHS, I have a solution: privatization, or at least let fatties foot the bill themselves. While we're at it, let's make pissheads pay for their stomach pumps too.

This is the problem, you can't have both. I think that people are more willing to tolerate government regulation of food than privatisation of the NHS.

[IlliteratePedant]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
It is not the government's concern to tell us what to eat, or to try and force us to eat certain food through taxation. If you are really concerned about the impact obesity has on our taxes through the NHS, I have a solution: privatization, or at least let fatties foot the bill themselves. While we're at it, let's make pissheads pay for their stomach pumps too.

But the government have made attempts to regulate the smoking of cigarettes and the consumption of alcohol, so its really not a big leap for them to try the same with foods high in sat fat. I reckon obese people cost the NHS a lot more than drinkers and smokers do.

[Martyn*]

We will never tackle obesity in this country (or even in the US) untill we start changing our attitudes to our bodies, our health and our wellbeing. We can't change the captialist system, the free market, etc. I think places like Subway and McDonalds are going to be around for a long time. I also believe that there is only so much doctors can do, before the onus falls onto the individual to make the necessary changes. We've tried getting young kids interested in exercise at school level, but the problem is that when they reach a certain age say about 17-18 (or younger), when they start to want to go out, look for sexual relationships, and look for work, all that exercise they did comes undone. It is worse for them once they get to 30-40, and then they start to let their bodies go, especially men.

Our attitude towards food and towards what we put in our body must be something of an on-going effort throughout life; it only takes a couple of years of eating the wrong foods and doing little exericse day-in-day-out before the weight starts pilling on, and it is much harder to lose that weight the older you get.

I don't know if a real and substantial change can be made when efforts to get people eating healthily and doing more exericse are thwarted by contra efforts from media and capitalism to get people to buy junk food and watch sport (rather than do sport).

[rugbyladosc]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
It is not the government's concern to tell us what to eat, or to try and force us to eat certain food through taxation. If you are really concerned about the impact obesity has on our taxes through the NHS, I have a solution: privatization, or at least let fatties foot the bill themselves. While we're at it, let's make pissheads pay for their stomach pumps too.

I agree with the first bit, the government has no right to tell us what to eat/what not to eat. Funding advertising campaigns is one thing but leveling taxes on high fat foods is way too far. Demand for these foods are relatively inelastic so people will just pay more tax (and poor people would be further affected because they spend a greater proportion of income on indirect taxation (and lets be honest- they eat more McDonalds))

Privatization may be a solution but is it morally sound? You would be 'solving' the problem by effectively refusing treatment and letting people die. 'Pissheads' also more than cover medical expenses through VAT duties.

[L i b]

I don't have any problem with McDonald's or Coke sponsoring the Olympics. The vast majority of people who eat or drink their products do so in relative moderation, not to the excess which would cause them to become fat, unhealthy or disabled. Equally I don't think having beer companies sponsor football events is encouraging rampant alcoholism: people just like a drink every so often.

You might as well start having a go at other sponsors like British Airways for damaging the environment, or sportswear companies for encouraging excessive exercising.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by rugbyladosc)
I agree with the first bit, the government has no right to tell us what to eat/what not to eat. Funding advertising campaigns is one thing but leveling taxes on high fat foods is way too far. Demand for these foods are relatively inelastic so people will just pay more tax (and poor people would be further affected because they spend a greater proportion of income on indirect taxation (and lets be honest- they eat more McDonalds))

Privatization may be a solution but is it morally sound? You would be 'solving' the problem by effectively refusing treatment and letting people die. 'Pissheads' also more than cover medical expenses through VAT duties.

I'm kind of confused, if they pay more tax then isn't that their choice? 'Poor' people can choose not to eat in mcdonalds and just buy food at the supermarket?

Also, it would just be like the 'pissheads covering their medical expenses' would it not?

[rugbyladosc]

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
I'm kind of confused, if they pay more tax then isn't that their choice? 'Poor' people can choose not to eat in mcdonalds and just buy food at the supermarket?

Also, it would just be like the 'pissheads covering their medical expenses' would it not?

The fact is people are always going to eat in mcdonalds, regardless of the VAT. In theory they could 'choose not to eat in mcdonalds' but fast food has become almost a way of life for lots of people...

Also not all 'pissheads' need regular medical cover. Actually those who frequently require medical treatment are in a tiny minority. Why should responsible (albeit occasionally excessive) drinkers have to pay more for alcohol just because some people don't know their limits??

[Indian_Prince]

haha tax fat people... another way the government finds to make money out of society..... tax everything and anything that is rising drastically.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
This is the problem, you can't have both. I think that people are more willing to tolerate government regulation of food than privatisation of the NHS.

(Original post by rugbyladosc)
I agree with the first bit, the government has no right to tell us what to eat/what not to eat. Funding advertising campaigns is one thing but leveling taxes on high fat foods is way too far. Demand for these foods are relatively inelastic so people will just pay more tax (and poor people would be further affected because they spend a greater proportion of income on indirect taxation (and lets be honest- they eat more McDonalds))

Privatization may be a solution but is it morally sound? You would be 'solving' the problem by effectively refusing treatment and letting people die. 'Pissheads' also more than cover medical expenses through VAT duties.

(Original post by Algorithm69)
It is not the government's concern to tell us what to eat, or to try and force us to eat certain food through taxation. If you are really concerned about the impact obesity has on our taxes through the NHS, I have a solution: privatization, or at least let fatties foot the bill themselves. While we're at it, let's make pissheads pay for their stomach pumps too.

To be honest, I wasn't really concerned as much about the first half of the article - if people want to eat lots then let them. I know the arguments against obseity can be justified as it is a health concern, but its mainly just a personal health concern comparitable to cigarettes or alchohol - except you are not causing passive smoking or anti-social behaviour. And it doesn't seem to fit with the government's 'Be Proud of Who You Are' doctrine......

I was more concerned about the advertisement of McDonalds at the Olympics - such an irony to it.

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by rugbyladosc)
The fact is people are always going to eat in mcdonalds, regardless of the VAT. In theory they could 'choose not to eat in mcdonalds' but fast food has become almost a way of life for lots of people...

Also not all 'pissheads' need regular medical cover. Actually those who frequently require medical treatment are in a tiny minority. Why should responsible (albeit occasionally excessive) drinkers have to pay more for alcohol just because some people don't know their limits??

Yeah they could choose not to eat it? What is the problem with that, if you can't afford it, then don't buy it. Simple.

And yeah, but it is a way of life that if you can't afford to keep up, you should change.

We as a nation are unhealthy, if it is decided that there should be a tax put on fast food, then that would actually be beneficial to a lot of people, because they simply wouldn't be able to justify buying it. I wouldn't and it would do my waistline a lot of good!

We aren't discussing, the VAT on alcohol, it is there, whether it should be or not is another matter, I was just using it as an example as it is already in place.

[rugbyladosc]

(Original post by Kiss)

I was more concerned about the advertisement of McDonalds at the Olympics - such an irony to it.

Yeah that is ironic!

(Original post by AlmostChicGeek)
Yeah they could choose not to eat it? What is the problem with that, if you can't afford it, then don't buy it. Simple.

And yeah, but it is a way of life that if you can't afford to keep up, you should change.

We as a nation are unhealthy, if it is decided that there should be a tax put on fast food, then that would actually be beneficial to a lot of people, because they simply wouldn't be able to justify buying it. I wouldn't and it would do my waistline a lot of good!

We aren't discussing, the VAT on alcohol, it is there, whether it should be or not is another matter, I was just using it as an example as it is already in place.

Eurgh! People will always be able to buy it, but at the expense of other stuff, thus making them poorer...

[AlmostChicGeek]

(Original post by rugbyladosc)
Yeah that is ironic!




Eurgh! People will always be able to buy it, but at the expense of other stuff, thus making them poorer...

That is their decision though? If they buy things they can't afford, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Fast food is a luxury, and one that only has short term benefits- i.e they feel happy for a bit, then they get a sugar crash and feel rubbish.

If they make themselves poorer by indulging in fast food, at the expense of other things, then they just have to live with that?

[Kolya]

While one could argue about fast-food sponsorship of the Olympics, I feel uncomfortable with doctors doing so. Doctors should be scientists before anything else. Having doctor organizations meddle in politics can sometimes damage science. By all means, individual doctors should be able to express their political opinions, but not through organizations representing the profession.

[Bill_Gates]

ill have a large doner kebab and chips no salad im on a diet.

[NB_ide]

(Original post by L i b)
I don't have any problem with McDonald's or Coke sponsoring the Olympics. The vast majority of people who eat or drink their products do so in relative moderation, not to the excess which would cause them to become fat, unhealthy or disabled. Equally I don't think having beer companies sponsor football events is encouraging rampant alcoholism: people just like a drink every so often.

You might as well start having a go at other sponsors like British Airways for damaging the environment, or sportswear companies for encouraging excessive exercising.

yes

[Katie_p]

It's already more expensive to eat a balanced diet than one overloaded with salt and satfats for the average person - taxing people who are overweight because they cannot afford the time or money to cook properly is only going to make matters worse.
I cook 9/10 meals or more from scratch, this term is the first I've bought any kind of processed meat (popcorn chicken), and I spend more on my food bill than people who live off bread, chicken and chips. Admittedly I eat larger portions than I should, but I've lost weight at Uni because I've been able to spend time cooking healthy meals, and had the freedom to buy the ingredients for them. But when the ingredients for tonight's meal (pork and aubergine curry) come to more than £10 for 4 people, and 4 portions of breaded chicken and chips can be less than £2, it's no wonder many people are overweight!
If the Government is going to stick its nose into yet another aspect of my life, they can tackle the price difference between healthy and unhealthy foods, rather than taxing those who are overweight because they cannot afford to be otherwise.