Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Government plans to reduce the size of sweet/chocolate bars Watch

    • Offline

      18
      tamil fever :mmm:
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      I support the idea. Although I don't know whether it will have a perceptible impact on child obesity. Many more steps will need to be taken. Fat children are usually caused by parents who overindulge their children and do not teach them self-control.

      These fat children often get bullied at school and then turn to food for comfort, which only worsens their weight issues. I think regular lessons on healthy eating and exercise from a young age are key. The government has implemented these into the education system for quite some time, yet obesity and child obesity is an growing issue.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sabertooth)
      Using that argument, everything indirectly affects everyone.
      I think the issues with obesity are that it is in almost all cases entirely avoidable, and to a large extent can be controlled by the individual. Yet is a huge burden on the NHS. Same can be said from illness caused by smoking and alcohol use.
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      The problem here is the parents. Not the chocolate companies or the stores that sell the chocolate. When I was a kid my mum allowed me 1 chocolate bar a week. I was allowed 2 biscuits a day and 1 packet of crisps. There was soda on Sundays with dinner but at no other time. I wasn't allowed to eat food in my room - because of crumbs and ants apparently, but really so my parents could monitor me and my siblings. On Thursday nights I went to the local sports center with my dad and brothers and we would compete against each other at badminton or squash. I played sports at school and was on several sports team. And before you say it, yes, we had a Dreamcast and N64 - 30 minutes a day during the week and 2 hours Saturday and Sunday.

      Parents these days take no responsibility for their kids, that's the problem.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I'm pretty sure they've been reduced before, right?
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Bubblyminty)
      I think the issues with obesity are that it is in almost all cases entirely avoidable, and to a large extent can be controlled by the individual. Yet is a huge burden on the NHS. Same can be said from illness caused by smoking and alcohol use.
      Skateboarding causes broken bones and is in almost all cases entirely avoidable.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sabertooth)
      Skateboarding causes broken bones and is in almost all cases entirely avoidable.
      Yeah I commonly hear that response with driving cars or skiing. There's some level of risk in everything. I think the difference is that obesity is in almost every case harmful to the individual.

      Skateboarding probably has more benefits than costs to the NHS (as it's a forms of exercise). And I would assume that most skateboarders don't end up in accidents, just like how the majority of drivers will never end up in a car crash. However, the majority of people who are obese will end up with health problems. Carrying excessive weight increases one's chances of cancer and CHD by tenfold.
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Bubblyminty)
      Yeah I commonly hear that response with driving cars or skiing. There's some level of risk in everything. I think that difference is that obesity is almost every case harmful to the individual. Skateboarding probably has more benefits than costs to the NHS (as it's a forms of exercise). And I would assume that most skateboarders don't end up in accidents, just like how the majority of drivers will never end up in a car crash. However, the majority of people who are obese will end up with health problems. Carrying excessive weight increases one's chances of cancer and CHD by tenfold.
      So what if it causes harm to oneself? Food is enjoyable just like lots of other things that are harmful. Tbh if something is fun it is usually in some way harmful. I'm struggling to think of something that's fun that isn't harmful in some way.

      This is the problem with an NHS, it causes big nosed busybodies to intervene in other people's lives. If someone wants to be fat no one has any right to tell them otherwise - children are not of age so their parents must do what is best for them (hence my other post), but if the parents want to be fat they paid their tax just like the skateboarders.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sabertooth)
      So what if it causes harm to oneself? Food is enjoyable just like lots of other things that are harmful. Tbh if something is fun it is usually in some way harmful. I'm struggling to think of something that's fun that isn't harmful in some way.

      This is the problem with an NHS, it causes big nosed busybodies to intervene in other people's lives. If someone wants to be fat no one has any right to tell them otherwise - children are not of age so their parents must do what is best for them (hence my other post), but if the parents want to be fat they paid their tax just like the skateboarders.
      People are free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. I have no problem without an obese woman stuffing her face with Krispy Kreme. I do have an issue when obesity related issues are avoidable and the NHS is bursting at it's seams and children who have rare cancers are being denied treatment due to lack of funding.

      People who are obese generally cost the NHS more than someone who lives a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise). Yes the obese people pay tax, but they use the NHS much more than the lean skateboarders.
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Bubblyminty)
      People are free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. I have no problem without an obese woman stuffing her face with Krispy Kreme. I do have an issue when obesity related issues are avoidable and the NHS is bursting at it's seams and children who have rare cancers are being denied treatment due to lack of funding.

      People who are obese generally cost the NHS more than someone who lives a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise). Yes the obese people pay tax, but they use the NHS much more than the lean skateboarders.
      You see the problem with that is how do we decide which people are obese through their own free will and which have mitigating factors. When you start asking people when the last time they had a doughnut it does get just a little fascistic.

      I'm obese right now for example. I had a (30g) bowl of raisin bran with skim milk for breakfast, homemade mushroom soup (no cream) for lunch, and a baked chicken breast (no sauce just s&p) in a tortilla wrap with 2 cabbage leaves, 2 medium carrots and 3 sticks of celery for dinner. I had 2 cups of chai tea with a tbsp of milk throughout the day. I skipped my 30 minute bike ride today as I'm coming down from a migraine. Now then, why am I fat I hear you ask? Well I take paliperidone (and haldol) which is an atypical antipsychotic that can cause huge weight gain. I put on 70lbs since April '16. So I take it I qualify for NHS treatment as it's not my fault but would you really know that looking at me? Yes I wouldn't have a krispy kream in my hand but does anyone else know that? There is no way you can regulate which fat people "deserve" treatment and which is self-inflicted.


      And the runners who need knee replacements? Or the skiers who end up in a coma when they hit their head. The founding principles of the NHS are that it is for everyone, not just those who don't, in some way, self-inflict their illnesses. I completely disagree with the NHS but you can't pick and choose who gets treatment like you seem to be suggesting.
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Just bring in the sugar tax...
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sabertooth)
      I thought Conservatism was more about taking responsibility for oneself [and hence, one's children]? How far you have fallen. :sigh:
      That's libertarian politics the Conservative party are more authoritarian
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by zayn008)
      Just bring in the sugar tax...
      I'm not fat, why should i pay more?
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Goat Boy)
      I'm not fat, why should i pay more?
      Becuase sugar can be bad for your health and should be eaten in consideration. A price hike will limit your consumption. You don't have to be fat, it's also bad for your dental health.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by zayn008)
      Becuase sugar can be bad for your health and should be eaten in consideration.
      Whats special about sugar, we can say this for pretty much anything and everything.


      (Original post by zayn008)
      A price hike will limit your consumption.
      Why would i want that? There's nothing wrong with how much i consume now.



      (Original post by zayn008)
      You don't have to be fat, it's also bad for your dental health.
      My teeth are just fine too thanks.
      • Political Ambassador
      Online

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Inaccurate title really, the article itself says that the firm's are choosing to do it of their own accord, either way it's silly, to tackle obesity you need to get people moving, eating less (without going to unhealthy levels) is insufficient.

      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      Obese people fix far more carbon than the rest of us; thus they are benefitting the environment. We should be giving them grants to get even bigger.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by FireFreezer77)
      Good, I'll eat less then
      ...do you really need a government to force chocolate bar vendors to reduce their product sizes just so you will eat less? why not just eat only 80% of all your chocolate bars and throw the last 20% of it away? why do you think everybody else has to be subject to this insanely nosey law for such a strange reason? surely you have the sense to control yourself and your diet so as to not warrant government help in this respect?
      Offline

      5
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 999tigger)
      How much chocolate do you actually buy?
      People feel ripped off when the size of their product shrinks and they get charged the same amount. Almost as satisfied thats ridiculous. Ive seen threads on here moaning about shrinking sizes.

      The context here is children? They dont think about getting value for money? REALLY? Parents buy most of the chocolate in supermarkets. The cheapest ive seen them this week is 9 mars bars or snickers for £1.49. All the others are available 9 snack size for £2. If they only have £1 they can buy 3 or 4 for £land. Why would you spend 80p on one?

      Aldi I can get a multipack mars bar , which is 36g a nice small treat size, until you realise a multipack of 6 is 59p.

      People know about sizes. At the end of last year they reduced the size of the £land bestseller by 20g which changed the shape of the Toblerone to have less triangles. It made the news.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37904703

      Same goes for bags of crisps, which have shrunk from 40/ 35g down to 25g, but you can now get 6/7 bags for £1. parents buy the multipacks. They also sell the 150g, 200g and 500g bags. It will have marginal effect.

      Education and parental control will be better.
      Meh. I eat one every now and then.

      I see many kids buy a snack to eat on the way home. The ones that do do it regularly. It's never more than one though.

      Of course people will look for a bargain when they can and hence by multipacks but how are you so sure the reduction in size will influence more people to do this? And people who already buy multipacks (according to you it's a lot) will be eating less chocolate. They wouldn't buy yet another multipack to compensate for a 20% decrease.

      Education will be fairer but not as easy to control and implement.

      (Original post by Sabertooth)
      Using that argument, everything indirectly affects everyone.
      Ok. Tackling obesity affects us less than staying idle.
      • Offline

        17
        NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
        I WAS JUST EATING CHOCOLATE RIGHT NOW
        why would they even do that?They r so cruel!Might as well start buying a supply of chocolate for life b4 its too late
       
       
       
      Reply
      Submit reply
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: February 9, 2017
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.