U.K.'s New Prime Minister Targets Country's Aggressive Food Nannies
Liz Truss seeks to possibly end ill-advised bans on advertising and special deals on foods experts deem “unhealthy.”
Good news in England for people who like good food: New Prime Minister Liz Truss' administration is taking aim at the country's overly oppressive attempts to regulate what people eat.
Health experts in the United Kingdom say it has a massive obesity problem, with around two-thirds of Brits classified as overweight. And because England has socialized health care, everybody is responsible for paying the additional medical expenses that may come from treating those who are obese, which the National Health Service (NHS) calculates at more than 6 billion pounds a year (almost $7 billion).
For the past five years, U.K. officials have attempted to address the problem by blaming just about everybody except those who overeat—advertisers, supermarkets, restaurants—and putting into place very broad, very strict regulations to fight junk food, or at least what the government defines as junk food. Advertising bans on junk food have been written so broadly that they also affect foods like cheese, butter, and olive oil. London introduced a ban on junk food ads so far-reaching that the government had to change ads on its transit systems because they included images of forbidden foods like strawberries and cream.
As the COVID-19 pandemic hit, U.K. health officials used it to crank up the nanny state regulations even further. In 2020, the government announced additional bans on junk food advertising, new rules on where unhealthy foods could be displayed in markets, and a prohibition on two-for-one deals featuring foods the government has decided are unhealthy.
Then the inflation and supply shortages got worse. Then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided in May to delay the bans. Deliberately driving up food prices amid a supply and inflation crisis did seem like a bad idea, but health officials were furious that he didn't follow through.
Truss might look to scrap the nanny food campaign entirely, supported by her health secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Thérèse Coffey. Via The Guardian:
Truss pledged during the Tory leadership campaign to light a bonfire of obesity rules if she won. "Those taxes are over. Talking about whether or not somebody should buy a two-for-one offer? No. There is definitely enough of that," she told the Daily Mail last month.
"What people want the government to be doing is delivering good roads, good rail services, making sure there's broadband, making sure there's mobile phone coverage, cutting the NHS waiting lists, helping people get a [doctor's] appointment. They don't want the government telling them what to eat", she added.
Reason noted the absurdity of the ban on discounting food when it was announced in 2020. Health officials claimed the sales caused people to "buy more food than they need." But people always need food, and the food they didn't eat at purchase can be saved for later. It was a bizarre and privileged policy authored by people who seemingly haven't had to budget for meals or time.
The Guardian noted back in May when Johnson delayed the plans to ban daytime junk food ads that it would also have cost broadcast networks in the U.K. more than 200 million pounds a year ($230 million) in lost revenue.
Truss was promising to scrap these rules back in August if she became prime minister. And in 2019 when she was a member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, she was already criticizing these types of approaches to deal with health issues:
The assumption is that society is a machine where levers can be pulled, the handle can be cranked, and better results will ensue. So, there are calls to regulate or ban foods too high in sugar or fat, to reduce obesity. … But people aren't machines — they are agents of their own destiny. In Scotland, alcohol consumption has gone up despite the introduction of the minimum alcohol price. Years of focusing on low-fat diets didn't work. Butter is enjoying a resurgence, after it turned out margarine wasn't a healthier choice after all. Over the long term, it is free societies, where people are able to lead their own lives, that have better results in terms of health, the environment, and life expectancy. Rather than trying to micromanage people's lives, we should focus on breaking down barriers to success whilst allowing us all the freedom to make our own choices
So let's appreciate Truss approaching the obesity crisis by encouraging free market solutions rather than government controls. She should consider a similar approach for the country's energy issues rather than attempting to freeze energy bills and risk the possibility of blackouts and/or rationing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My body fat, my choice.
Scott needs to be canceled for not celebrating your fat.
I’m surprised Scott didn’t petition for the new pm to lower their age of concent to 3
Nah, that’s more like SPB2.
Yes but… what Trump have to say about Liz Truss? How can we know what to think if we’re not told what to think?
Sad!
So you’ve decided to pull a sarcasmic and troll for fights, Brandy.
I’m in a pissy mood, I’ll go at it if you want.
Sarc is doing a bang up job making a fool of himself in earlier threads.
He’s nothing if not consistent.
“Yes but… what Trump have to say about Liz Truss? How can we know what to think if we’re not told what to think?”
TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit finds this amusing.
:In her 40s she was. I occasionally used to see her at the Waterstone’s in South Kensington and she was evidently both healthy and attractively slender.
And because England has socialized health care, everybody is responsible for paying the additional medical expenses that may come from treating those who are obese,
This shite again.
The NHS has studied this and, over their lifetimes, obese people use fewer health care dollars than people at optimal body weight.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-actually-save-government-health-care-costs
For fuck’s sake, do a little goddamned research before making asinine statements that undermine your own arguments.
Telling people what they can and cannot eat is wrong. Period. You don’t need to virtue signal that you are a reasonable progressive before you say that.
You don’t need to virtue signal that you are a reasonable progressive before you say that.
You say that as if he made a choice and it wasn’t a preconditioned response.
I’m hoping that such preconditioned responses can be overcome.
Like, if you want teach yourself to stand up straight, you have to consciously look for times when you slouch. You have to know what you reflexively do wrong if ever you are to correct it.
So then dying young is a net benefit to The Collective?
Yes. Yes it is.
Thus TWO huge problems with socialized, government run, healthcare like the NHS.
1. Perverse incentives in regards to cost (both from the consumer who is sheltered from REAL costs, and from the accountant looking for a way to reduce costs when it gets out of hand)
2. People will always use “But it costs ALL of us!” when justifying telling others what to do. And
2.a. my point here, is they will use that justification even when the argument is completely specious. It tugs the emotional heart strings, so fuck you I get to tell you what to do (regardless of what the data are saying) because… it costs us all when you’re (fat, smoke, ride a motorcycle, climb mountains, do anything I don’t like that I can pretend puts you at risk of an NHS visit).
That’s pretty much it. Overweight people are less of a burden on a socialized system because they don’t live as long on average. We know they are less healthy, and we know they consume less public healthcare dollars. Therefore they must be dying off sooner.
On the other hand, the long term costs of cancer may outweigh the costs of cardiovascular problems that obesity brings.
This shite again.
The NHS has studied this and, over their lifetimes, obese people use fewer health care dollars than people at optimal body weight.
When you need an economist to make your moral argument, you’re doing it wrong.
It doesn’t matter whether the fatties cost $2 and the emaciated cancer patients standing in line for treatment cost $1 or the other way around, the government shouldn’t be subsidizing healthcare.
Nothing wrong with that statement at all. Nationalized health care is a nightmare, and the perfect thing to tighten the ratchet a few more notches. I don’t support it in any fashion.
I was just pointing out the bullshit of making a specious argument that contradicts the actual data on the matter… it’s bad writing and bad journalism. Shackford can do better.
That 15 year old study by the Tax Foundation (in 2008) was bought and paid for by cigarette companies, and misrepresented the evidence on the actual costs of treating obesity and smoking.
Besides, the costs of treating obese people and sick smokers have greatly increased during the past 15 years, and obesity (now called comorbidities to not offend fat people) was/is the leading risk factor to covid illness, hospitalization and death.
Virtually every adult cigarette smoker over the age of 35 is now diagnosed with COPD (they moved the goal posts) and given prescription drugs (that are approved by FDA to treat COPD).
The study also didn’t add in costs from disability and non productive labor. It was a shit study.
I feel like Reason has an unjustified hard on for Liz.
#metoo
Probably because she’s WEF: https://www.weforum.org/people/liz-truss
And she gives great speeches for them on fixing the world trade system (No, not that sort of “fixing” you racist conspiracy theorists).
Meanwhile, on the Continent…
With a little forethought, governments can deal with the energy crisis and the obesity crisis simultaneously!
No doubt, these people are some f’n sick twisted bastards.
Health experts in the United Kingdom say it has a massive obesity problem,
Ge to the important part – how does obesity affect the trans community?
Badly. Case in point:
https://static.accessonline.com/uploads/118025.jpg
I ain’t clicking that one.
Don’t worry. It’s wearing a suit.
It’s safe for work. I wouldn’t do that to you.
Actually look like a fatter version of one of my brothers-in-law. His suits are as poorly tailored too.
>>Years of focusing on low-fat diets didn’t work.
weren’t going to work whether public or private advocacy.
“So let’s appreciate Truss approaching the obesity crisis by encouraging free market solutions rather than government controls.”
Except that the NHS (i.e. socialized medicine/healthcare) has largely torpedoed the free market for healthcare insurance (e.g. premiums based upon risk rating).
Today’s two for one special:
Hook the fatties up to bicycle generators and have them pedal their way to sliminess while solving the energy crisis.