Isn\’t this just wonderful?

Supermarket multibuy promotions on fatty foods could be scrapped in a new obesity crackdown by the Government.

Minutes from a Department of Health working group reveal big retailers and food companies may also have to set aside a percetange of marketing spend for \”healthier\” products instead of promoting fizzy drinks, confectionery and crisps.

Seriously, the cunts are going to determine not just what a company\’s own money may not be spent upon, but what it must be spent upon?

Over and above such civil liberties concerns there\’s the point that the cunts are so often wrong about these food issues anyway. The salt thing for example, there\’s good evidence that they\’re entirely arse about tip over it. Given that we excrete any surplus salt and that a lack of it actually kills.

The bottom line of this is that clearly, we\’ve got too much government and too many would be governors if they\’ve got the time to piss about with stuff like this. Time to hang some of them.

16 comments on “Isn\’t this just wonderful?

  1. The problem is that they all used to be bolting front wings onto Allegros, or rebolting the wings on after they fell off or replacing the ones that had rusted. But as we joyously move from people bodging things with their hands they aren’t moving into useful service work or lazing in the sun, no, they are moving into management.
    Most management could and should be as automated as bolting wings on cars, and if it can’t be then it is probably unnecessary.
    A replacement of white collars with hempen rope is probably the only answer.

  2. And there’s a good chance they are completely wrong about the ‘reduce saturated fat intake to reduce heart disease’ thing too. The science behind it was fiddled in the 70s. Its more than likely that its the carbs (particularly the sugars) that are making us fatter and unhealthier. And guess what all the ‘low fat’ products are stuffed with? Sugar of course! And people wonder why we have a nation of fatties.

  3. What Jim said. Eating fat doesn’t make you fat. Fat has been an important part of the human diet since we were hunter gatherers. Low fat alternatives are often highly processed and full of carbs and sugar. There is also evidence that artificial sweeteners may be linked to obesity.

  4. eh?

    theres plenty of evidence to link reduction of salt intake to reduced incidence of hypertension.

  5. No there isn’t. Not a jot.

    There is a small temporary effect on blood pressure when you ingest salt, due basically to osmosis. And that is really all there is.

  6. the problem is that no one trusts the experts any more, becuase it turns out a surprising number are prepared to lie for money omit certain details from their final papers that the funding bodies deem confusing. But this, in turn, has allowed any non-expert to gain almost equal prominence by shouting loud enough.

  7. I’ve very little sympathy with the big retailers here, though. If they hasn’t rolled over so cravenly to every other barmy initiative from reducing plastic bags to hiding the cigarette kiosk, (and actually going further than needed in the case of the ‘Under 25?’ scheme) maybe they wouldn’t be being dictated to yet again.

  8. Whether or not salt is bad for you or trans fats fur up your arteries is begging the question. Even if every pork pie and ready meal the supermarkets flogged to the punters were flamboyantly lethal, it still wouldn’t be the job of these jumped-up, puritanical mattress stains to weigh in. I do not need some DoH ‘working group’ (aka congeries of unemployable parasitic fuckwits) to save me from myself. If I’m on my way to hell, I can furnish my own fucking handbasket, thank you.

  9. It’s one of the consequences of ring-fencing the health budget, that they have lots of time and money for “working groups”, unvisited web sites, but still can’t quite run many hospitals effectively.

  10. The Salt hysteria seems to consist entirely of CASH…

    You might be right that only CASH is hysterical about it, but, as rm suggests, there’s no serious doubt that reducing salt consumption reduces blood pressure. What’s much more difficult to prove is that it reduces mortality. Such data as exist are consistent with the hypothesis, but insufficient to prove it.

    Tim’s claim that “that’s good evidence that they’re entirely arse about tip over it” is false.

  11. No, rm is wrong.

    There is tons of doubt, for example here and here

    But more to the point is this.

    The modern salt saga started in 1904 with a paper by Ambard and Brochard who showed an association between salt intake and blood pressure in six patients. On the basis of these observations they created a salt–blood pressure hypothesis.

    […] in the mean time, we have got so many more efficient medical treatments that the place of sodium reduction in the treatment of hypertension is probably rather marginal. Today we even have a dietary measure that is more efficient and more acceptable for the patients than sodium reduction, namely the intake of fruits and vegetables.

    […] considering that the salt controversy now is dealing with an effect size of about 1 mm Hg, one may ask, has it been worth 100 years of effort?

    The answer, of course, is no. But whether you believe that or not, there is definitely “serious doubt” about the pronouncements of just one guy with an income derived exclusively from his obsession with salt.

  12. So on the one side we’ve got the latest Cochrane meta-analysis, on the other you’ve advanced a blog post and a newspaper article. Shrug.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.