Obesity ‘Biggest Threat to Women’s Health’ in England

Obesity is the biggest threat to women’s health and the health of future generations. This according to England’s chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies:

BBC: Obesity ‘biggest threat to women’s health’ in England

She has the right ideas – changing the disastrous food environment. The only problem is talking about giving the food industry yet another chance to change first.

First of all – the food industry has had plenty of time already (decades). Secondly, it doesn’t matter how much time they get – they can’t change by themselves. Any company or executive that tries to do the right thing will immediately lose market share or get fired.

The food industry can only change due to changing demand from consumers – or legislation. The situation is serious enough that we need both.

The problem is too big to just talk and wait for someone else to do something.

Earlier

How to Lose Weight

US Obesity Keeps Rising – Not Stopped by Ridiculous Calorie-Counting Efforts

Sugar Clinics Helping Mexico Control Diabetes Epidemic – Or Do They?

Graph of the Year

“Global Obesity Rise Puts UN Goals on Diet-Related Diseases ‘Beyond Reach’

“Young Europeans May Die at Earlier Age Than Their Grandparents, Says WHO”
 

7 comments

  1. Tuck
    "...The food industry can only change due to changing demand from consumers – or legislation. The situation is serious enough that we need both...."

    Demand is changing, albeit slowly. Legislation will further entrench the low-fat/high-carb dogma, since that's still the "consensus".

  2. Pierre
    "She said the food industry needed to do more or it should face a sugar tax."

    The problem now is that overweight and obese people are majoritaires.
    So the politicians won't put a sugar tax because they would lose surely the next election.

  3. Devlin
    I'm done. I believe whole-heartedly in the LCHF diet and lifestyle. I have appreciated the science, anecdotes, recipes and access to lectures and movies but I can't take the constant fascist approach. TAX / LEGISLATE / FORCE. "Let's get the government to MAKE industry change and MAKE people eat the way WE think they should eat". I know this plays well in western Europe but Americans just don't think that way, Andreas. Furthermore, industry is putting out the products that are killing us BECAUSE of government influence, interference and "recommendation" (your site has actually detailed this many times) - the more the government gets involved the worse it gets.

    I truly hoped this wouldn't continue but it is actually getting worse and I, for one, am canceling my membership because of it. Thank you for your advocacy for LCHF and the various ways you have otherwise helped many people.

    Reply: #4
  4. I agree more government regulation is *very rarely* the answer, but sometimes it can be an important part of it.

    Is it "fascist" to tax tobacco or to try to limit the availability of addictive drugs?

  5. PhilT
    I'm against taxation in general for a number of reasons. I am particularly against sugar taxation as sugar is a carbohydrate and I cannot see a strong evidence base to support replacing sugar with maltodextrin and artificial sweetener in a snack bar (for example).

    The sugar tax lobby want to get a funding stream from the tax to peddle their views and promote their 55% carbohydrate diet. This is wrong.

    If SSBs have a proven problem then remove VAT from the diet equivalent and you have a discount. Diet drinks are cheaper to produce anyway. In California the sugar tax is not being passed on fully by the supply chain and retailers to the consumer.

  6. Regina
    I love this site. Normally I prefer less government intervention rather than more. But since they are the ones who started us down this road in the first place with their dietary recommendations that had no scientific facts supporting them, they need to contribute to the solution. Rather taxing us and telling us what to do, they could simply stop helping the food companies that are killing us by not funding them indirectly in a thousand small ways. They could start by eliminating subsidies to large corporate carb farmers.
  7. chris c
    The subsidies may go to the farmers but are passed on to the Foodlike Substance Manufacturing Industry by way of artificially low prices for raw materials. A few years back the farmers I know were being paid £30 - £50/tonne LESS than the cost of production for their wheat. Did the price of bread or cereal go down? No, thought not. Dairy farmers have gone out of business from being consistently paid less than the cost of production for the milk which the supermarkets buy cheap and mark up more. Vegetable growers are forced to use cheap/illegal East European labour to stay in business. Selling to the public direct or via local outlets keeps more of the money in circulation within the local economy. Compare the price per tonne for potatoes and crisps ("chips") to see where all the money ends up.

    Any tax on "sugar" will just push up the (cheap) starch content. Quality fats, proteins and vegetables will remain expensive and unsubsidised as long as "food" manufacturers and their profits control government policy. Obese people are profitable as they eat more "food", by definition. Iceberg, what iceberg? These deck chairs need rearranging.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts