Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cashinmattress

Mcdonald's And Pepsico To Help Write Uk Health Policy

Recommended Posts

Link

The Department of Health is putting the fast food companies McDonald's and KFC and processed food and drink manufacturers such as PepsiCo, Kellogg's, Unilever, Mars and Diageo at the heart of writing government policy on obesity, alcohol and diet-related disease, the Guardian has learned.

In an overhaul of public health, said by campaign groups to be the equivalent of handing smoking policy over to the tobacco industry, health secretary Andrew Lansley has set up five "responsibility deal" networks with business, co-chaired by ministers, to come up with policies. Some of these are expected to be used in the public health white paper due in the next month.

The groups are dominated by food and alcohol industry members, who have been invited to suggest measures to tackle public health crises. Working alongside them are public interest health and consumer groups including Which?, Cancer Research UK and the Faculty of Public Health. The alcohol responsibility deal network is chaired by the head of the lobby group the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. The food network to tackle diet and health problems includes processed food manufacturers, fast food companies, and Compass, the catering company famously pilloried by Jamie Oliver for its school menus of turkey twizzlers. The food deal's sub-group on calories is chaired by PepsiCo, owner of Walkers crisps.

The leading supermarkets are an equally strong presence, while the responsibility deal's physical activity group is chaired by the Fitness Industry Association, which is the lobby group for private gyms and personal trainers.

In early meetings, these commercial partners have been invited to draft priorities and identify barriers, such as EU legislation, that they would like removed. They have been assured by Lansley that he wants to explore voluntary not regulatory approaches, and to support them in removing obstacles. Using the pricing of food or alcohol to change consumption has been ruled out. One group was told that the health department did not want to lead, but rather hear from its members what should be done.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, the leading liver specialist and until recently president of the Royal College of Physicians, said he was very concerned by the emphasis on voluntary partnerships with industry. A member of the alcohol responsibility deal network, Gilmore said he had decided to co-operate, but he doubted whether there could be "a meaningful convergence between the interests of industry and public health since the priority of the drinks industry was to make money for shareholders while public health demanded a cut in consumption".

He said: "On alcohol there is undoubtedly a need for regulation on price, availability and marketing and there is a risk that discussions will be deflected away from regulation that is likely to be effective but would affect sales. On food labelling we have listened too much to the supermarkets rather than going for traffic lights [warnings] which health experts recommend." Employers are being asked to take on more responsibility for employees in a fourth health at work deal. The fifth network is charged with changing behaviour, and is chaired by the National Heart Forum. This group is likely to be working with the new Cabinet Office behavioural insight unit, which is exploring ways of making people change their behaviour without new laws.

Lansley's public health reforms are seen as a test case for wider Conservative policies on replacing state intervention with private and corporate action.

While public interest groups are taking part in drawing up the deals, many have argued that robust regulation is needed to deal with junk food and alcohol misuse.

The Faculty of Public Health, represented on several of the deal networks, has called for a ban on trans fats and minimum alcohol pricing. Professor Lindsey Davies, FPH president, said: "We are hopeful that engaging with the food industry will lead to changes in the quality and healthiness of the products we and our children eat. It is possible to make progress on issues such as salt reduction through voluntary agreements, and we're keeping an open mind until we see what comes out of the meetings, but we do think that there is still a role for regulation."

Responding to criticism that industry was too prominent in the plans, the Department of Health said: "We are constantly in touch with expert bodies, including those in the public health field, to help inform all our work. For the forthcoming public health white paper we've engaged a wide range of people, as we are also doing to help us develop the responsibility deal drawn from business, the voluntary sector, other non-governmental organisations, local government, as well as public health bodies. A diverse range of experts are also involved."

He added that the government wanted to improve public health through voluntary agreements with business and other partners, rather than through regulation or top-down lectures because it believed this approach would be far more effective and ambitious than previous efforts.

An over-arching board, chaired by Lansley, has been set up to oversee the work of the five responsibility deal networks, with representatives of local government and a regional health director – but it too is dominated by the food, alcohol, advertising and retail industries. Gilmore called for a better balance of commercial interests and independent experts on it.

Other experts have also expressed concern at Lansley's approach. Professor Tim Lang, a member of the government's advisory committee on obesity, doubted the food and drink industry's ability to regulate itself. "In public health, the track record of industry has not been good. Obesity is a systemic problem, and industry is locked into thinking of its own narrow interests," said Lang.

"I am deeply troubled to be sent signals from the secretary of state about working 'with business' and that any action has got to be soft 'nudge' action."

Jeanette Longfield, head of the food campaign group Sustain, said: "This is the equivalent of putting the tobacco industry in charge of smoke-free spaces. We know this 'let's all get round the table approach' doesn't work, because we've all tried it before, including the last Conservative government. This isn't 'big society', it's big business."

In other words, profit driven majority share holders are aiding and abetting the government in regards to our nations health and nutritional policy.

Good old Tony and his 'kitchen cabinet' have nothing on the sleaze here.

Think your kids are fat now? Hehe, wait a decade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link

In other words, profit driven majority share holders are aiding and abetting the government in regards to our nations health and nutritional policy.

Good old Tony and his 'kithen cabinet' have nothing on the sleaze here.

Think your kids are fat now? Hehe, wait a decade...

It would be interested to know what people think the outcome SHOULD be.

Would people like an outright ban on junk food..? no junk food in schools? close/tax every fish and chip shop? ban/tax high fat products in supermarkets? Ban/tax chocolate?

We really need to know what the public want first.. then just tell these industry bod's to like it or lump it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interested to know what people think the outcome SHOULD be.

Would people like an outright ban on junk food..? no junk food in schools? close/tax every fish and chip shop? ban/tax high fat products in supermarkets? Ban/tax chocolate?

F*ck banning junk food/ alcohol. Let's just charge fat people over a certain body fat percentage for using the NHS and if they refuse to pay tell them they have to attend Fat Clinics where they go on a strict 2 week diet/ course then are given a year to lose their fattness and if they lose enough they are allowed to use the NHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to have missed a trick in not recruiting Abel Gonzales as a consultant. His mouthwatering recipes include deep fried butter, deep fried coke, deep fried Oreos etc.

You've got to love the inventiveness of Texans.

Sally Davies happy meal project is quite disturbing. She's been photographing her McDonalds Happy Meal for 217 days now and it's appearance is pretty much the same as it was on day 1. Apparently McDonalds claim their food is biodegradable.

Here it is on day 1 and day 180. The subsequent 37 days seem to have had no ill effects either.

hlt-101012-Happy-Meal-art-project.grid-8x2.jpg

Mmm, I'm loving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F*ck banning junk food/ alcohol. Let's just charge fat people over a certain body fat percentage for using the NHS and if they refuse to pay tell them they have to attend Fat Clinics where they go on a strict 2 week diet/ course then are given a year to lose their fattness and if they lose enough they are allowed to use the NHS.

It's nothing to do with that - it's all about Climate Change!

Britons should eat less meat and dairy products to help tackle climate change, Prof. Tim Lang a government advisor has said.

Speaking to mark the United Nation's World Food Day, Professor Tim Lang, who advises the Government on food security and tackling obesity, said one of the key ways Britain can help tackle Climate Change is through food policy.

W.T.F.! This is how 'they' are brainwashing the kids of today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the sweet stench of corporate corruption rising from the government.

I guess this is what Silver Spoon meant when he waffled about BIG Society? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that I would support would be the 'Traffic Light' system on foods etc.

I dread politicians and scientists who want to 'Change Peoples Habits'

If people want to be fat, smoke and alcoholic, also drugs, it is their choice and no-one elses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that I would support would be the 'Traffic Light' system on foods etc.

I dread politicians and scientists who want to 'Change Peoples Habits'

If people want to be fat, smoke and alcoholic, also drugs, it is their choice and no-one elses

Whilst not disagreeing with your general thrust, it is not JUST their business though, because some other person (the poor damn taxpayer again) has to pick up the bill when, for instance, they trough, drink or smoke themselves into the arms of the NHS.

Saberu is more along the right lines, but even that isnt so simple, as this argument can be extended ad nauseum thus " So you hurt yourself exercising, trying to keep fit and healthy and thus save the NHS money? Too bad, you still hurt yourself doing something you chose to do. That'll be 3 and a half grand, please." Do you see the problem yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that I would support would be the 'Traffic Light' system on foods etc.

I dread politicians and scientists who want to 'Change Peoples Habits'

If people want to be fat, smoke and alcoholic, also drugs, it is their choice and no-one elses

Yes, but do you have any idea how effective the marketing of these products is.

Many people don’t choose it, it's chosen for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fracking leave US ALONE!

we dont need guidance.

we need to be LEFT ALONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally Davies happy meal project is quite disturbing. She's been photographing her McDonalds Happy Meal for 217 days now and it's appearance is pretty much the same as it was on day 1. Apparently McDonalds claim their food is biodegradable.

Here it is on day 1 and day 180. The subsequent 37 days seem to have had no ill effects either.

Anything dry with salt will not rot.

People collect dried flowers which will last decades or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 246 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.