MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brickbat: And No Pineapple

PizzaAnnie Su Yee Yek / Dreamstime.comThe British government is set to impose limits on calories in ready-to-eat meals and sandwiches sold in restaurants and supermarkets. And the limits will be well below the number of calories typically in those foods now. A small pizza, for instance, could have no more than 928 calories, which would force makers to either cut the size of the pizza or reduce the amount of toppings.

Photo Credit: Annie Su Yee Yek / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • IceTrey||

    "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Three lies for the price of one.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That Telegraph article read less like journalism and more like stenography. Anyway, let's hope they don't their caloric intake from limes.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Public Health Minister Steve Brine said the Government was "willing to do whatever it takes to keep children healthy and well in this country."

    "There are literally no limits to what we are willing to do to achieve this goal."

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

  • Radioactive||

    take my slice from my cold dead....well you all know how this goes.

  • Radioactive||

    what will they do if I bring in bootleg pepperoni?

  • Trigger Warning||

    As long as they don't impose size limits on tits.

  • Mickey Rat||

    What does it matter? You are a fiend for noticing them anyway.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Not if they are on a tranny.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Not if they are on a tranny.

  • sarcasmic||

    What will most likely happen is people won't be satisfied with one serving, so they'll have a second which they may or may not finish. As a result people will consume more calories than before the regulation.

  • Agammamon||

    The best part? Each serving will be 2/3rds the calories of the pizzas they replace so they'll end up eating 50% more.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Consumers are saying they want smaller portions and healthier options."

    Maybe with words, but not with actions. Otherwise the market would have responded.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That statement could be satisfied with two consumers saying that and everyone else wanting extra large portions. It is an appeal to an amorphous authority.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Let them have a smaller portion. Unless your mommy follows you as an adult to insist you finish your plate, we can all have the portion size we want.

    That pizza slice is too big? Wrap up the rest to have later or throw it away! No one is force feeding them.

    Their government is out of control. The British people should rise up and slap them down.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Too hungry. Or fat. One of those. Maybe both.

  • croaker||

    Since you can't have guns or knives. good luck.

  • Wizard4169||

    Slap them down? Not a chance. I'm pretty sure the wussification of (Once) Great Britain has long since passed the point of no return. Most Brits these days actually seem pretty happy to let the benevolent state nanny over every aspect of their lives. Even with their vote for Brexit, I suspect they're merely exchanging the rule of faceless bureaucrats in Brussels for the rule of faceless bureaucrats in London (and Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff).

  • sarcasmic||

    Looks like the Brits are trying to reduce Subcutaneous Phat.

  • Radioactive||

    band name?

  • Jerryskids||

    The Brits aren't familiar with the concept of 'buy one, get one'? Just sell half-portions and throw in the second half for free. It's really no different than nutritional information on US packaging which goes by 'serving size' like anybody eats half a candy bar or 12 M+M's or a cup of ice cream.

  • sarcasmic||

    A quick google told me that they don't do BOGO across the pond. It's frowned upon because it causes obesity. I wish I was making that up.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Scots eating delicious deep fried pizza and chasing it with delicious beer may also contribute. That shit is so fucking yum.

  • Griffin3||

    It's frowned upon, but is it illegal?

  • sarcasmic||

    It's the UK. What's the difference?

  • Rich||

    A small pizza, for instance, could have no more than 928 calories

    "And by 'small pizza', of course, we mean 'large pizza'."

  • Radioactive||

    oh, I thought it meant "fucking huuuuge"

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    One of my libertopia changes is that all laws have to include a complete list of expected consequences and must be falsifiable, or they are void for being defective. The list of expected consequences can't get too nebulous and all-encompassing, or the laws would be void for not being falsifiable.

    Laws like this would have to at least admit they aren't going to do much. The law itself might list its expected consequences as "Reduce child obesity by .1%", but when the authors brag how it would have a noticeable impact and is an important tool in the arsenal etc etc etc, that is part of the public record of expected consequences and could be used as part of the falsifying.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    For instance, TFA says

    They follow Government pledges to halve rates of childhood obesity by 2030.

    Well, there's an expected consequence, which is falsifiable, but it is so far in the future as to be worthless. An honest judge would call the law unfalsifiable and void, but how many honest judges would remain in office? Any unlisted consequences automatically void it, once proven, but a good judge and government lawyer could tag-team that case long enough for a replacement law to pop up.

    Still, it would force some honesty into legislation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Government is fueled by good intentions. When their coercion and violence does not yield the desired results, it must have been disrupted by someone with bad intentions. Because government always has good intentions, and good intentions cannot possibly cause bad results.

    This is how government paves the road to Hell.

  • Radioactive||

    could have sworn it was fueled by stupid, lots & lots of stupid

  • sarcasmic||

    It takes lots of stupid to believe that good intentions only yield bad results when bad intentions interfere.

  • Longtobefree||

    They should just cut to the chase, and take all children away from their parents at two years old, and raise them in government training camps with mandatory exercise and government dictated meals.

    Or maybe, just force the children of government officials and workers to publicly exercise to exhaustion each day in the public square. As a good example.

  • Rich||

    force the children of government officials and workers to publicly exercise to exhaustion each day in the public square

    "Good job, Buddy!"

  • croaker||

    Add overseers with whips and I'll go for it.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Yay, Airstrip One!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Fat shaming!

    The argument is always that nanny state interference is necessary to reduce the burden on the health service, and therefore the taxpayers. I wonder if they ever considered structuring healthcare to make it more efficient and affordable, and not a bastion of unelected career bureaucrats with no concept of sustainability. A collectivist catch 22, because British people have no concept of doing things any other way. One party blames the other and no one thinks outside the paradigm. The "right wing" party is actually predominantly socialist and resembles Soviet officials securing lucrative contracts for their cronies in industry, growing the nanny state, growing the surveillance state, controlling speech, and the left wing party would do just the same, but with literally no concept of fiscal responsibility at all, and an even more zealous war on "class enemies" and wrongthink.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Pizza makers will just sell their toppings separately. Yeah that means more packaging probably in small plastic bags so we can kill more sea critters and yeah the consumer will pay more. Regulation Accomplished!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Garbage Island keeps voting for Socialists and this is what happens when you have Socialists in power. They ban things.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    There's actually no one else to vote for.

  • Juice||

    They put sweet corn on their pizza, you know.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Put Nicolás Kramden Maduro in charge. Trillion pound notes for nothing to eat. You can't be too rich or too thin.

  • markm23||

    928 calories is a lot for one meal - but unless they do things very differently in (Formerly Great) Britain, a pizza is never intended to be just one meal for just one person. A small pizza might be split between two, or a couple of slices put away for tomorrow. A large pizza should feed a small crowd, and there still ought to be leftovers.

    So what this intervention will mean is that people order two small pizzas - and spend more for more calories.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online