The Royal Society for Public Health is out on day release from the asylum again. You may remember that back in November 2014 they had this lunatic idea that there was a ‘clear public appetite’ for the calorific content of alcoholic drinks to be shown on packaging.
https://nobodysreadingme.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/how-not-to-tackle-the-obesity-crisis/
This was utter twaddle then and it remains so now. There is no such appetite at all. But this has not deterred the RSPH, which clearly has money to burn from its charitable status, and has now come up with a new scheme to nanny the population, and this one is just as much of a non-starter.
It’s recommending that food labels should show how to burn off the calories contained in the food. There’s a claim that a poll of 2000 people showed 63% to be in favour this change to food labels. Somehow I doubt that, but we’ll let it stand for now.
Just over 53% thought that labels of this sort would persuade them to do more exercise, eat less, or choose healthier products. I doubt that too.
There’s also a claim that people were three times as likely to say they would take more exercise after viewing ‘activity equivalent’ labels than the current traffic light labelling. Now that might be a true figure, but the critical thing is that that’s what people said. Do you really think that would translate into action? I’m pretty sure I don’t.
Shirley Cramer, the chief exec of the RSPH, trots out the usual goobledegook you expect from someone with a vested interest in making it look as if she has a useful job.
‘Although nutritional information on food and drink packaging has improved, it is evident that it isn’t working as well as it could to support the public in making healthy choices.’
The word ‘choices’ in this context always make my heart sink. If you’re a salad dodger, changed labels aren’t going to make a shred of difference to your buying patterns. If you’re of the organic quinoa and spring water school of thought, you’ve already made your choices.
All that would happen is that the consumers will get stuck with the bill for the changes, because you can guarantee it won’t be the manufacturers taking a cut to their profits for this pointless exercise There’s also the problematic aspect of the size of the packaging. I already have trouble reading the miniscule typeface on most packaging. To squeeze even more information on, you need bigger labels. The size of the packaging increases at a time we’re all being told to reduce the amount of waste we generate.
Barmy.
nobodysreadingme 
why can’t they just shut up and admit there are only 3 items you need to read on a label…that should be the only thing you see!
FIRST and most important, CORN SYRUP!!! If you get that out of your diet, you cure your diabetes, most heart conditions and stop your pancreas from shutting down, which by the way leads to a boatload of other medical issues… that shit is in almost everything PREPACKAGED! If you don’t cook it fresh…. just give up! You’re gonna be fat! 2nd and 3rd are SODIUM and SUGAR! 200 mg of sodium a DAY is all you should have, or you bloat like a fkn blowfish retaining water weight….over 30 grams of sugar, and you just ate an ENTIRE CUP OF SUGAR with your food!
I personally think they should just show the reality of what America has become…fat! Show pictures of fat people eating the food on the box…and no one will buy it! INSTANT WEIGHT LOSS!!!
I don’t understand how people can be so BLIND! they have all the nutritious food info out there…but they don’t care. not really! they just want someone else to blame for them being fat! if we all really cared, we’d feed the world and not just our fat selves. And I mean everyone…not just the US… if we shared, no one would be overweight!!
I take issue with the idea that removing corn syrup will ‘cure’ diabetes, because once you’ve got it you’ve got it.
Prepackaged? Hard to imagine some foods that you you more or less have to buy prepackaged.
Sugar, yep, cut down. Easy for me to say, I don’t have a sweet tooth.
Salt? The jury’s out on this one, and I used to work in the healthcare industry. Won’t do any harm to cut down, but it may not do you, as an individual, any good.
I don’t have a blameless diet, but it’s nearly all vegetarian, since a/ it’s cheaper and b/ I’ve gone off meat. I can do chicken occasionally, but that’s it apart from the occasional bacon sarnie.
I do think your comment reinforces what I was saying. More complex labelling won’t help at all. The targets won’t read, the non-targets already know. Ms Cramer was trying to justify her existence
Canadian law stipulates all cigarette packages must feature health warnings and graphic images of cancerous tumors, diseased hearts,desiccated death bed patients etc. I guarantee not a single smoker even notices. My point being,it doesn’t make a lick of difference.
The asinine absurdity of implying calorie burn labeling pays dividends is lunacy.
Same here. If your shop employs over a certain number you can’t display cigarettes, they have to be in a cabinet with opaque doors. That’s not worked either.
A few years ago some wag launched a brand called Death. I thought that was both accurate and very funny. They were forced to withdraw them. By the way, here they’re trying to bring in legislation to enforce plain packaging, but that put the government head to head with EU competition laws.
Soon it will be easier to buy marijuana than cigarettes.All our stores have to keep cigarettes out of sight. Smoking is banned in city parks, beaches, essentially all public spaces.Yet you can waltz into any medical marijuana dispensary, take 3 minutes to Skype with pot shop’s doctor and obtain a medical marijuana card.Completely bat shit logic! I can’t fathom the logic behind anyone expecting us to believe warning labels are helpful.Food inspectors overlook imports of questionable edibles from China (global economy matters more than lead or pesticide contamination ) but good health demands citizens be informed of how many footsteps it takes to burn off their noodle bowl Nincompoops of the highest order!
I don’t see the point of banning smoking in public places when the average truck churns out a lot more carcinogens than you get through passive smoking.