You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Maybe all of these community minded smokers could give up smoking and still support their local pub, instead of being a snowflake and giving up on the pub because they can’t smoke there. In fact, with all the money saved on cigarettes, these fine outstanding citizens of the community will have more money to spend in the pub, and pubs will flourish.
This is a great idea, let’s get the ban through asap!
The motivation behind the proposal is alleged concern for the wellbeing of smokers, you don't appear to be in full sync with the spirit of this proposed law.
The problem here is that people are selfish and frankly don't care much about things which have little effect on their lives. The proposal appears to have widespread public support (which is presumably useful for a government which would rather the public didn't focus on less popular issues) I suspect that most people who support the proposal don't do so because they are concerned about the health of smokers.
You don’t seem to understand I was poking fun at those wetting the bed over this!
Yes I understood that you were taking the piss. I didn't think you were being serious with your talk of "fine outstanding citizens" and "snowflakes".
Might have missed this, as the thread goes on a bit... but has anyone mentioned that, presumably, this is all a part of trying to prevent a new generation of smokers? It's not just about "protecting smokers from themselves", but about (further) reducing take up... fewer new smokers has to be an aim of any public health policy. Removing smoking from the places we socialise and relax begins to remove the, hard fought for by the companies that sell this stuff, emotional and social link between smoking and switching off that us older peeps have hard had wired into our brains... reducing that for younger generations has to be key. That's what occurred to be when I was sat in the sunshine in the pub yard earlier anyway.
Possibly Kelvin, I have no idea how kids get introduced to fags these days. For me smoking was more associated with going to school than going to the pub. By the time I looked old enough to get away with ordering a pint in a pub I was already an addicted smoker.
Is it likely to be much different these days?
It’s all about da vapes wit da kidz, innit?
That article doesn't define what is likely to be classed as "junk food", they just give a couple of examples of won't be.
That’s interesting. How will the ban on online ads be monitored and enforced?
That article doesn’t define what is likely to be classed as “junk food”
And you don't think using a picture of a burger and chips is in any way indicative of the type of junk food they're likely to target ?
Well I think that the BBC decided to use an illustration of a burger and some chips to interpret what they consider to be junk food, does that provide evidence that it also the government's definition of junk food?
Does the government even use the term "junk food" in the context of the proposed legislation? I would have thought ultra processed food might be a better defined target with regards to tackling childhood obesity. Which would include biscuits, cakes, crisps, sugary drinks, etc
But as I say the article doesn’t define what is likely to be classed as “junk food”
Edit : Sorry my mistake, according to the article it isn't "proposed" legislation, it will come into force October 1st next year.
If they're tackling advertising because Won't Somebody Think Of The Children their efforts would be better spent on the intrusive shit which suddenly appears mid-sentence during Peppa Pig.
Well to answer my own question it likely will include the following:
soft drinks with added sugar
juice drinks with added sugar
milk drinks with added sugar
crisps and savoury snacks
breakfast cereal
chocolate confectionary
sugar confectionary
ice cream
cakes
sweet biscuits
morning goods
pudding and dairy desserts
yoghurts
pizza
chips and potato products
family meal centres
complete main meals (ready meals)
breaded and battered products
main meals (out-of-home)
starters, sides and small plates (out-of-home)
children’s meal bundles (out-of-home)
sandwiches (out-of-home)
It would appear that the current government are basically going ahead with a proposal by the previous government which was put on hold to give the junk food industry time to adjust:
What are "morning goods"?
Probably among the least healthy on that list! I imagine it's croissant, pain au chocolat, brioche, pastries, that sort of thing?
A euphemism for one of the three 'S's?
I notice that yoghurts are on the list, no doubt a thinly veiled attack on Guardian readers by the previous Tory administration, I hope Keir Starmer removes it from the list.
I would also like confirmation that "breakfast cereal" doesn't include muesli.
Ban this filth!
crisps and savoury snacks
Woaaahhhh there,
Glad to see pies have recognised as a critical part of a nutritionally balanced intake and left off the list.
That’s the power of the ‘Big Greggs’ corporate lobbyists
Can't wait for the C4 expose, "Under the crust: inside the flaky world of pastry"
Will drinks with apple juice be included?
It's a very cheap and sneaky way lots of companies add sugar to their products.
I disagree that a burger is necessarily "junk".
I make burgers from mince, with salt and pepper. Eat them with cheese and salad. What's wrong with that?
Fat is a necessary part of any diet.
The facility that pasta and rice are "healthy", is part of the reason that there are so many overweight kids.
Of course not but you knew that.
MacDonald's burgers are the same. Beef, seasoned with salt and pepper.
MacDonald’s burgers are the same. Beef, seasoned with salt and pepper.
Well if MacDonald's burgers are not high in fat, salt, and sugar, then they will presumably be able to advertise them before 9pm.
What would happen if you sat in a pub beer garden playing a YouTube reel of Gary Linekars Walkers crisps adverts on your phone?
What would happen if you sat in a pub beer garden playing a YouTube reel of Gary Linekars Walkers crisps adverts on your phone?
After 9pm and without smoking a fag? Fine
I think they should probably ban pubs from selling crisps btw. And drinks high in alcohol.
As a teetotaler who is trying to give up crisps I would approve.
Is it just crisps Ernesto or are you an attempted refusenik on all savoury snacks?
Where do you stand on the pork scratching, or on that perennial pub debate… is the mini cheddar technically a crisp?
I'm a non meat eater so pig skin, or whatever it is, is definitely out. I have a great weakness for mini cheddars.
Yesterday I decided to have a Sainsbury's mini apple pie, I thought the apple filling must surely be healthy. I was horrified to read on the box that two mini apple pies contains a quarter of the recommended daily saturated fat intake. In fact it stressed me so much that I had to eat four for the satisfying comfort of the sugar.
I have a great weakness for mini cheddars
I feel your pain, brother. When I’m working from home I have to constantly remind myself that it isn’t compulsory for me to emerge with another packet of them every time I go in the kitchen. Controversially, I prefer the Red Leicester ones to the originals.
And not that I’m trying to lead you astray, but they sell these beauties in my local, which is the best crisp to have with a pint EVER! I’ve just checked and, somewhat counterintuitively, they are fine for vegetarians
£24.80 for a packet of crisps?
I paid £3.50 for a tea in this supposedly "cyclist's pub" the other day and thought that was a rip-off
https://www.thequeenstage.co.uk/
Controversially, I prefer the Red Leicester ones to the originals.
I'm with you on that one.
£24.80 for a packet of crisps?
For 12 large packets of crisps 🙂
From McDonalds' own figures, a classic burger contains 22% of recommended daily salt intake and 17% of the DV for saturated fat, plus a healthy 9% of your DV of added sugar, so I suspect they'll be struggling a bit to evade any advertising ban.
Once you move on to the cheeseburger you obviously get a lot more for your money, and a couple of big Macs will pretty much satisfy all your daily fat and salt requirements.
Of course, no-one is going to prevented from enjoying a McD burger, they're just not going to be advertised pre watershed. So stay up late and enjoy all the food advertising you want.
I am really surprised that a Macdonald's classic burger contains so little saturated fat....17% of recommended daily allowance?
My Sainsbury's Bramley apple pie (six in a box) contains 14% ! And they are tiny! You can easily eat four, as I can testify
Pastry is basically fat and starch.
The McD burgers contain a lot less fat than my homemade burgers.
I use mince with 20% fat. Makes a far better burger.
I've used 5% fat mince and the burgers are rubbish, very bland. Which is roughly the same as the McD's. Which if you eat one without any pickles, onions etc. taste of almost nothing.
For 12 large packets of crisps 🙂
that is still more than £2 per packet though just to buy & eat at home, which to me is an expensive crisp! I wonder how much the pub sell them for?!
Each bag is the same as 6 x 25g though. Which is about the same price of a multi pack in the supermarket.
that is still more than £2 per packet though just to buy & eat at home, which to me is an expensive crisp!
Have you been to a supermarket recently?
the best crisp to have with a pint EVER! I’ve just checked and, somewhat counterintuitively, they are fine for vegetarians
Vanishingly few crisps in the UK aren't vegetarian-friendly. I'm loathe to say "all" because there's probably outliers but I can't think of any offhand.
Each bag is the same as 6 x 25g though
The blurb underneath the image reads 6x150g.
Will they be banning Honey ? That stuff is pure sugar.
The may not ban it completely but you’ll only be allowed to eat it after sunset
I am really surprised that a Macdonald’s classic burger contains so little saturated fat….17% of recommended daily allowance?
If you want to go big on calories at the Golden Arches then breakfast is the time to do it. A breakfast wrap, (or heart attack’ wrap as they are christened by Macy’s employees) contains all the salt and saturated fat you’ll need for a week. Double sausage and egg McMuffin for the breakfast of champions, obvs
Will they be banning Honey ?
ICYMI,
The ban is on advertising, not the product itself. I'm honestly not seeing a downside to this, marketing shite to impressionable kids must create a demand where parents eventually just give in to the pressure. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it.
The only people this will effect is companies like ITV and channel 4. Advertising has been migrating away from TV since the advent of social meedya anyway
This will just accelerate it with Maccy D’s KFC etc pulling the plug and switching entirely to Tik Tok, Instagram and digital billboards etc.
Ultimately it’ll make no difference at all as da kidz never watch terrestrial TV anyway (does anyone?), though you may now get a cheaper advertising slot during Corrie or Gogglebox, so there’s that…
If it didn’t, they wouldn’t do it.
Or it's aimed at the parents......."if you really want to make your children happy and smiling, like those in this advert, buy them...."
I remember my mother innocently poisoning her grandchildren with Sunny Delight because apparently it was the great taste which kids love.
Didn't Sunny Delight have to change their packaging and/or advertising as it was very misleading?
They changed their recipe! They were forced to do so when it became widely known that it was full of suspect chemicals. But I think it was too late to stem the collapse of their sales, as I remember.
I can’t get my head around marketing drinks towards parents to buy their kids, that contain stimulants
My business idea is to market one at parents to buy for their kids that contains Valium
Would I be able to advertise it before 9pm though?
Night Nurse?
My recollection of the Sunny D story is that it all came to the fore when someone drank heroic amounts of the stuff and the artificial colouring sent their skin orange.
I think that may have been the catalyst for a bit of a rethink in the UK. I've watched a couple of YT videos recently, Americans trying British 'candy.' It's been something of an eye-opener because they all react to our packaging the same way, "no artificial colours or flavours, huh!" Compare and contrast UK and US Fanta for instance, ours looks like orange juice, theirs looks like you could find it in the dark.
American food in general is terrible.
Their beef has a weird flavour and is jammed with steroids.
I bought a bag of salted pistachios, they were inedible. Their "lightly" salted were saltier than the stuff in the UK.
They put sugar in bread!
My business idea is to market one at parents to buy for their kids that contains Valium
When I was little, my parents used to give me "gripe water" to stop me grizzling. It was alcohol-based. No wonder it shut me up, I was two years old and shitfaced.
When I was about 5, I used to pinch the bottle of Dinnefords gripe water out of cupboard and neck it. Loved it.
They put sugar in bread!
Try buying sliced bread without added sugar in the UK, not as easy as you might imagine.
Or "fresh" soup without added sugar. It annoys me almost as much as the "no added sugar" claim...... there's no added sugar because they have sweeten the product with chemicals which are even more suspect than sugar. Either sweeten with sugar or don't bother sweetening it.
They put sugar in bread!
Is there any worse smell in the world that that terrible sickly sweet sugary bread smell they pump out of Subway shops?
It’s has me gippin’
there’s no added sugar because they have sweeten the product with chemicals which are even more suspect than sugar.
Those "chemicals" are some of the most tested foodstuffs on the planet (not least because of the hysteria from some quarters). You're far better off with artificial sweeteners than something laden with sugar. It's basically the "vaping is bad" argument again, it well may be but it's still better than 40 Lambert a day.
You’re far better off with artificial sweeteners than something laden with sugar.
That's your opinion and not one that I share. Based on both personal experience and properly conducted research.
Even "natural" sugar substitutes such xylitol have been shown to have the potential to cause serious harm*.
Everything doesn't have to be ridiculously sweet and if you want to cut down on your sugar intake then eat less sweet stuff. Simple
Edit: * Obviously in large quantities
Night Nurse?
Change the colour, a spot of rebranding and we’re in business @kelvin
When we used to go out clubbing a mate of mine used to take his own body weight in MDMA and pink champagne, then when we got back in he’d chug a whole bottle of Night Nurse then go to bed.
Kind of puts things in perspective in the ‘saving people from themselves’ stakes, doesn’t it?
Having said that he did die from a massive heroin overdose, so maybe they’ve got a point
That’s your opinion and not one that I share.
Well no, it's not. The sheer volume of testing performed on things like Aspartame, the poster boy for the tinfoil hat brigade, is well documented. I could google it but then so could you.
Obviously in large quantities
... which is doing some heavy lifting here. Xylitol is known to have a laxative effect in sufficiently large quantities. Aspartame is 200x sweeter than sugar, you'd have to try pretty hard to consume a large quantity. If you fill up rats with the stuff until they explode then yes of course, "in large quantities" is usually bad whatever the substance. It's possible to overdose on water for goodness sake.
But that's still got to be better than a can of Coke with 40g of sugar in it. Can you imagine getting a cup of tea, being asked "sugar?" and answering "yes, 40 please."
So I did google it.
The WHO:
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
"with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources." Ie, north of 3 litres a day. Drinking full-far Coke, that would be an entire half-kilo bag of sugar.
The NHS (with a link to a big-ass list on the FSA):
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/are-sweeteners-safe/
"All sweeteners in Great Britain undergo a rigorous safety assessment before they can be used in food and drink. All approved sweeteners are considered a safe and acceptable alternative to using sugar."
I suppose that's also, like, just their opinion, man.
Yes it's your opinion. All sugar substitutes used in processed foods have been shown to be perfectly safe until the research which shows that they are not.
Xylitol is known to have a laxative effect in sufficiently large quantities.
And more recently it has been linked to heart attacks and strokes :
Common sugar substitute linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke
I actually use xylitol btw but in very small amounts, never more than two teaspoons per day - one in a mug of coffee in the morning and one in a mug of coffee in the afternoon. But I don't want it added to everything that I eat and drink.
The reason I use xylitol is for weight and blood sugar control, I am also aware that it is highly beneficial to your teeth.
Obviously large amounts of ordinary sugar is bad for your health and can contribute to heart disease and strokes but it doesn't mean that it should be substituted for large amounts of other sweeteners.
Using sugar substitutes and claiming "no added sugar" as if that somehow makes it healthy is ridiculous imo, although not apparently in yours.
Tbh after reading that ^^ article carefully I am not sure that I want to carry on using xylitol at all. I was aware that research in the last couple of years had linked xylitol to heart disease and strokes but it was suggested that this was in the case of large amounts.
The above article is only 3 months old and suggests a link with much smaller amounts of xylitol. Wtf :
"All it takes is xylitol to interact with platelets alone for a very brief period of time, a matter of minutes, and the platelet becomes supercharged and much more prone to clot,”
As I said, all the research shows that these new additives in modern food production are perfectly safe until the research which shows that they aren't.
The question is do you want to wait for the research which shows that they are dangerous or do you want to rely instead on ingredients which have been used for thousands of years and whose effects we understand much better?
Apparently xylitol is extremley toxic to dogs, not sure about other pets.
I had to bin a load of Huel powder as it contained it... not that I'd planned on feeding my dog protein shakes, but I didn't want the risk of any accidents if I spilled any.
I think they have since stopped using it as a sweetener so would only affect older batches.
TBH i'm very much of the school of just use proper sugar, but a lot less of it... same with spreads... proper butter every time, you don't need much.
Getting back to the original topic… sorry and all that, with the subject of artificial sugar being so fascinating… I was in a beer garden a couple of hours ago and and older couple wandered in, sat at the next table and he got a pint and lit up a proper Sherlock Holmes style pipe. A PIPE!
The bastard!
Give it another few months and I’ll be able to dof him in to the feds and there’ll be an armed response unit on the way and he’ll have the rest of his life behind bars to reflect on what he’s done.
And we as a society will all be better off for that
TBH i’m very much of the school of just use proper sugar, but a lot less of it… same with spreads… proper butter every time, you don’t need much.
Exactly.
Margarine is the the sweat from the devils arse-crack
Butter every time.
Lets ban butter next then, because… the NHS or something
Common sugar substitute linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke
"Linked." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Even your article states that there's no evidence of causation.
Using sugar substitutes and claiming “no added sugar” as if that somehow makes it healthy is ridiculous imo, although not apparently in yours.
You can't resist having a little dig, can you.
Is "no added sugar" implicitly healthy, of course not, it would be stupid to make that claim without qualifying it. But is it healthier than consuming a pound of actual sugar every day, Christ, I almost contracted Type 2 Diabetes diabetes just typing that.
Are you asserting that the NHS is wrong? The FDA? The World Health Organisation? It's possible of course, but we're going to need more to go on than "linked."
The question is do you want to wait for the research which shows that they are dangerous or do you want to rely instead on ingredients which have been used for thousands of years and whose effects we understand much better?
I think I'd rather wait for the research which disproves something which multiple health organisations across the globe agree upon after strenuous testing, rather than rely instead on "ingredients which have been used for thousands of years and whose effects we understand much better" when that well-known better understanding is that it is refined sugars are terrifically bad for us.
That said, it seems that such wholesale consumption in the West is relatively recent. This is worth a read.
But is it healthier than consuming a pound of actual sugar every day
I would hope no-one is consuming that amount of any type of refined sugar or sweetener.
Apparently xylitol is extremley toxic to dogs
Oh, yeah. This crops up on Facebook memes from time to time, but it seems that for once it's one which is actually true. I think it's fine for other animals though, or at least not as catastrophic as it is with dogs.
Apparently (I discovered just now when checking Ernie's claims) human toothpastes can contain xylitol, that's worth knowing if you decide that Fido has a bad case of dog breath.
You can’t resist having a little dig, can you.
Are you for real? You are challenging absolutely everything I say and make snidey references to, quote, "the tinfoil hat brigade". That's not having a little dig? FFS
I couldn't give a monkeys if you think, for example, that xylitol is perfectly safe, I have no intention of trying to change your mind. Consume as much as you want, why do think it might be an issue for me? I provided a link about recent research concerning xylitol and if the conclusion you come to is that it's perfectly safe then that's great, you have nothing to worry about.
I am simply expressing the opinion that I don't like the amount of artificial sweetness added to processed foods. This is for a number of reasons including that I don't think they are particularly healthy. IME they have negative effect on the digestive system. Obviously you don't have to agree with me.
Are you for real?
You do this all the time. You make little snipes at people - not just me - and then act all innocent when they object. It's pretty tedious TBH.
You are challenging absolutely everything I say
I'm challenging something you're dismissing as "opinion" which is readily googlable.
and make snidey references to, quote, “the tinfoil hat brigade”. That’s not having a little dig? FFS
For what it's worth, and I apologise here if it was poorly worded on my part, that wasn't directed at you.
I am simply expressing the opinion that I don’t like the amount of artificial sweetness added to processed foods. This is for a number of reasons including that I don’t think they are particularly healthy.
If you'd said that at the outset rather than claiming "chemicals... are even more suspect than sugar" then I wouldn't have disagreed with you.
So… cakes? …. ban them or not?