London Plans To Ban Junk Food Advertising On Public Transport (bloomberg.com)

Junk food advertising could be banned from the entire Transport for London network under proposals announced by Mayor Sadiq Khan, as he tries to tackle rising levels of childhood obesity in the city. From a report: "I want to reduce the influence and pressure that can be put on children and families to make unhealthy choices," Khan said in a statement announcing the proposals to ban advertisements for unhealthy food and drink on London's trains, buses and bus shelters. The mayor also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters of schools.

London has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in Europe -- nearly 40 percent of 10-11 year-olds in the capital are overweight or obese, according to the statement. Children from poorer areas are disproportionately affected by the "obesity epidemic," Khan said, adding that young people from Barking and Dagenham in East London are almost twice as likely to be overweight as children from the upmarket Richmond neighborhood.

Comments

Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not tech. Not even tech related.
Maybe Sadiq could start with banning ads for political junk ideology, like his own, which leads to far more deaths like encouraging boys to NOT be athletic or active leading to... obesity.

Re:Why is this here?

[cayenne8]

You know....I see the thought and good intentions behind this type of move.

But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

I mean, in this day in age....does not pretty much everyone not already know that pre-processed junk food is bad for you? That overeating processed carbs and SUGAR will cause obesity?

Is it that somehow, the general public is now so fucking stupid they don't know this, and that these subway ads sway their behavior in such an unavoidable fashion that they must be protected from ads?

Hmm.....why not, instead....have the government actively PROMOTE that people cook their own meals (try to encourage the family meal again), and to eat more unprocessed vegetables, cut back on sugar and carbs.

Why not promote what works actively....and stay out of who advertises what, you know?

Rather than withhold product information (nothing wrong with these things in moderation), why not instead promote ideas of HOW to eat healthy.

Why not help fund and start up grow co-ops in the poorer areas, the areas that have had these spring up, have really helped the food desert communities, to educate them and get the kids interested in growing healthy food they can consume.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not tech. Not even tech related.

No-one said that /. was a `tech` news site. There's plenty of those already by the way. Their slogan reads 'News for nerds, stuff that matters'. Apparently you associate 'nerds' with 'tech', which is an understandable mistake. However, political news, and news related to civilian rights, or involve 'culture-changing paradigms' always had their place at this website, as it is considered 'stuff that matters'.

This very article is one of them, as it is about politics trying to change/shape society by taking away a bit of freedom from companies, and was therefore considered relevant by the editors and/or the people voting topics at the firehose. Feel free to skip it and continue to stories you find more interesting.

Re:Why is this here?

[religionofpeas]

But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

Re:Why is this here?

[cayenne8]

If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

Well, I don't expect the government to pay for the consequences....

At least in the US.....and if the UK is like the US, I wish they'd stop subsidizing the farming and mass production of the very foods that are causing the obesity epidemics in our nations...and others around they world.

Re:Why is this here?

[zieroh]

But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

I think it's a legitimate function of government to prevent corporations from preying on the unwary public, especially those who aren't otherwise well-informed.

Re:Why is this here?

[war4peace]

But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

Reality says "yes".
Remember the government proposal is an effect, you will have to look up the cause.

I mean, in this day in age....does not pretty much everyone not already know that pre-processed junk food is bad for you? That overeating processed carbs and SUGAR will cause obesity?

Reality says "no".
Most people won't give a fuck. They buy and eat whatever tastes good, is heavily advertised and is available nearby.

Is it that somehow, the general public is now so fucking stupid they don't know this, and that these subway ads sway their behavior in such an unavoidable fashion that they must be protected from ads?

Reality says "yes".

People have always been fucking stupid. Also, the human body is wired to respond positively to sugar. Also, cheap food is usually bad and poor people choose cheap food.
But yes, these are not the only issues causing obesity. Fact of the matter is that most edible stuff that's available in supermarkets and not only contains various types of sugar in one form or another, from meat to bread to pickled peppers and mustard. THAT practice (putting sugar in food products it doesn't belong) needs to be banned, and right away.

Re:Why is this here?

[SuperKendall]

Actually I figured it was here because most tech people had a long-lasting relationship with junk food. I'm certainly not gong to cast the first stone disparaging something that kept me fed through very long hours in a computer lab...

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the subsidization, but also that they food guidelines that they released decades ago that more recent research has shown to be not just wrong, but even harmful given the more sedentary life styles of today. Massive numbers of people put their trust in that incorrect information or have had it ground into them for decades and continue to follow it even after we've found out it's wrong. Schools based their lunch menus around those same guidelines and contributed to the problem as well.

Re:Why is this here?

[cayenne8]

I think it's a legitimate function of government to prevent corporations from preying on the unwary public, especially those who aren't otherwise well-informed.

Wouldn't the govt funds be better served by informing the people about healthy choices, make a NEW food pyramid, tell them the evils of sugar and processed foods, to cook and eat "real" food, rather than trying to ban every company trying to sell junk food?

I'd rather see the govt doing something POSITIVE rather than negative banning this or that ad....

Maybe even start teaching healthy food choices and how to grow gardens in the schools, start the kids out early on what is good food for them....!!

Re:Why is this here?

[zieroh]

Wouldn't the govt funds be better served by informing the people about healthy choices, make a NEW food pyramid, tell them the evils of sugar and processed foods, to cook and eat "real" food, rather than trying to ban every company trying to sell junk food?

First, banning advertising on public transit doesn't cost anything. Or, rather, the cost is negligible.

Second, yes, public education about healthy choices would be great. It costs much more than banning advertising, but I agree that education programs would be a positive step.

Third, there's no reason the two can't co-exist. It's not an either-or.

Re:Why is this here?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Indeed. I think the question of whether food that doesn't market itself as healthy constitutes 'preying'

By all means if someone is advertising burgers as health food, shut 'em down for false advertising. But when a place advertises it's as the Heart Attack Grill, it seems like they are being pretty damned honest about it.

Re:Why is this here?

[mysidia]

If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

Right to prevent, sure.... but don't mess with the food companies. Childhood obesity is Not a problem with foods --- It's a problem with kids not getting enough exercise and having a bad overall diet.

The logical thing to do then is to mandate that children complete a certain number of exercise hours per week and keep a food diary, with food intake meeting certain qualifications Before they are allowed to use public transportation ---- If Not, then you can walk.

Re:Why is this here?

[mikael]

It was the government's fault in the first place to allow property developers to build over all the playing fields, small parks and green spaces in London in the goal of "solving the housing crisis". Same with reducing housing standards so the property developers could pack more homes in more space. Then they allowed the food manufacturers to use all the different preservatives and chemical processes to make processed food more "attractive".

Re:Why is this here?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Well, he already got ads with ladies showing too much skin banned, and I am not so sure what problem that ban was supposed to solve... But if you can ban ads for violating your idea of morality or decency, then you can certainly ban them to prevent people form making stupid choices.

Re:Why is this here?

[mikael]

The question to be asked is why are children preferring to eat food from the fast food chains rather than school meals?
What makes the school meals unattractive? Is the soggy chips, fish fingers and squishy peas that they used to serve?

Other countries like France have the parents help prepare and school school lunches meals. That helps to keep the quality up and the food served fresh.

Re:Why is this here?

[JaredOfEuropa]

So if they foist some universal health care package on me, which I didn't ask for, they can then dictate pretty much all aspects of my life? No thanks. That is why socialized anything should NEVER come with the automatic assumption that they have the right to prevent.

Re:Why is this here?

[sabri]

If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

"The Government" is not paying for anything. It's the tax-payer's money, taken by threat of force.

That said, this is yet another indication that the freedom of speech is non-existent in the U.K.

Re: Why is this here?

[war4peace]

Not all regulation fits your definition. Some is necessary, some is long overdue, and some is retarded.

Re:Why is this here?

[serviscope_minor]

So if they foist some universal health care package on me, which I didn't ask for, they can then dictate pretty much all aspects of my life?

Well that degnerated fast.

Yes they "foisted" some universal healthcare package on us which happens to get on average better outcomes than the US system for about half the cost per capita. Apparently the foisting works.

And as for "them" dictating aspects of your life? Firstly, this is TFL who are refusing to advertise harmful products, not the national government (the one doing the foisting). Secondly, refusing to accept advertising from some global megacorps is hardly dictating "pretty much all aspects of your life". You're still free to go to McDonalds as often as you like.

That is why socialized anything should NEVER come with the automatic assumption that they have the right to prevent.

It doesn't.

Re:Why is this here?

[ljw1004]

I mean, in this day in age....does not pretty much everyone not already know that pre-processed junk food is bad for you?

That's an irrelevant question, and use of the word "know" is way off-base when it comes to advertising.

The question is, does the advertising on junk food cause more people to purchase junk food than otherwise would? The answer is self-evidently yes. (by following the money). So this move will obviously reduce the amount of junk food ingested. It's not a great leap to think that this will in turn reduce the amount of obesity.

Re:Why is this here?

[Obfuscant]

Well that degnerated fast.

Yes, it has. It started downhill with the talk about "if you expect the government to pay for", which isn't a fact that is in evidence.

Firstly, this is TFL who are refusing to advertise harmful products,

No, actually, it is a proposed ban by the City of London. The Government.

Secondly, refusing to accept advertising from some global megacorps

It's not a ban on advertising from "global megacorps", it's a ban on fast food advertisements "from companies like McDonalds". There are a lot more fast food restaurants than just McD's. From TFS: "A large percentage of the advertising that would be affected comes from 'a handful' of major companies and brands," which means a large percentage would be for a lot of small companies -- not "global megacorps".

Also from TFS: "Mayor Khan also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters (1,300 feet) of schools." That would include Uncle Bill's Chippy Shop, run by Uncle Bill and his family. Clearly not "global megacorps".

You need to rein in your hatred for "global megacorp" and your attempt to justify stupid laws because they would only impact those you hate, because those stupid laws will hurt a lot of small players, too.

Re:Why is this here?

[OrangeTide]

But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

One function of our civilization is to carry dumbasses on our backs in the hope they will eventually learn to participate usefully in society.

Libertarian leaning people don't want the government forcing people to do things, and individuals should be in charge of as many decisions about their own life as possible. Anarcho-capitalism don't want anyone regulating any business venture. I consider these two very different ideas that aren't coupled to each other, but are frequently used as the political platform of American Libertarians. (at least the outspoken ones online)

I'm more of the philosophy of: You should lead a horse to water. But you shouldn't force him to drink.

Re:Why is this here?

[Obfuscant]

It was the government's fault in the first place ... Same with reducing housing standards ...

So it is the government's fault that parents choose substandard housing and poor environments to raise their children? Should the government force ALL housing to be adequate to raise a four person family in a healthy environment, or should it step out and allow different options for different needs? I.e., a four person family really ought to have at least three bedrooms. Absolute minimum, two. There has to be a park nearby with lots of play activity. Etc. But that will raise the prices unnecessarily for single people looking for basic housing.

If you are a single 20-something seeking a place to live reasonably close to work in the big city, then you will be priced out of the market if the only thing available is your "family friendly" multi-person dwelling. Even if you're a newlywed couple. No sane four-person family wants to live in the heart of the city, so all those government-required three bedroom housing units will ... not be used by sane four member families.

Then they allowed the food manufacturers to use all the different preservatives and chemical processes to make processed food more "attractive".

They allow preservatives to keep the food from decomposing and rotting, and going to waste if it isn't eaten in a day or two. Improving shelf life and allowing longer farm-to-table times increases the food supply and allows the same amount to feed more people. It improves diversity in the food supply so that a local drought or crop failure doesn't cause starvation. It reduces spoilage on the shelves so grocers don't have to charge higher prices to cover lost sales.

Rant about sugar, yeah, but going back to the 1800's for limited lifetime on food products is asinine. I happen to like the "attractiveness" of unmoldy cheese and green vegetables that aren't brown and meat that isn't green and fuzzy instead of red.

Re:Why is this here?

[Obfuscant]

The question is, does the advertising on junk food cause more people to purchase junk food than otherwise would? The answer is self-evidently yes. (by following the money).

The answer is not as simple as that. It will increase the amount spent at the advertiser's stores, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Does it increase the size of the overall market?

We had a "Burgerville" move in to replace a local Wendy's. (Wendy's made the stupid decision to simultaneously close many of their stores for a system-wide remodel; some of them never re-opened.) They're the "high class" fast food with $6 burgers. Across the street is a McDs that doesn't seem as busy as it used to be, and one block away is a Burger King that I know isn't as busy because it is boarded up closed. New store, new ads, but the market didn't expand to keep everyone in business.

So this move will obviously reduce the amount of junk food ingested.

There your "it's obvious" argument fails. A customer who is likely to buy a McD product based on the ad is already likely to buy something from any convenient store he passes by. Advertising sometimes tries to increase a market; sometimes it only redirects the existing market to make different choices.

It's not a great leap to think that this will in turn reduce the amount of obesity.

Uhh, yeah, actually it is. You're now two levels away from "obvious". If someone doesn't see an ad for McD, does that mean he will eat something more healthful? Or will he just buy junk food from a convenience store (or the main grocery), or some other cheap stuff that isn't good for him but is quick and easy to consume? If you aren't reminded of how convenient McD is, will you find a grocer with fresh produce, buy the parts to make a balanced dinner, go home and take the hour to prepare and eat it, or will you just stop in the shop on the corner and pick up some takeout of something else?

Are those people who used to stop at the BK in my town now eating well-balanced, nutritious meals prepared fresh? Or are they in line at Burgerville or McD?

If you are a consumer already primed to eat well, then a McDs ad will be irrelevant. McD and other fast food ads are targeted at people who are already going to make poor choices in their foods, and that's what causes the health problems, not which of the many fast food places they pick to consume their poor food choices.

Re:Why is this here?

[LynnwoodRooster]

If Government were actually interested in serving you, they'd also ban advertising of lots of things like tobacco, alcohol, and even foods that much worse for you than a Big Mac. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.

Re: Why is this here?

[Bing Tsher E]

The children could get badges to wear on their uniforms to show their compliance with dietary guidelines. Badges that would give them the right of way in public and on the public transport system.

Yes, you can see where this is going. Don't mind my /s.

Re:Why is this here?

[h33t l4x0r]

Obesity is especially dangerous in London, as it makes it harder to dodge the knives, knives, knives.

Re:Why is this here?

[AHuxley]

What ads will the UK ban next?

Re: Why is this here?

[Bing Tsher E]

The mechanism that generates regulation is ambitious, aggressive and fairly self-propelled. It is perilous to overly encourage such mechanisms to be established.

Re:Why is this here?

[AmiMoJo]

Especially children. Parents often appreciate these limits because the ads prompt their kids to start nagging them McDonald's. Yes yes they should be "good" parents and just say no or whatever, but in the real world it's useful to them to have this stuff banned.

There is evidence for it working too. The ban on junk food ads during children's TV shows was effective.

Re:Why is this here?

[AmiMoJo]

The way it used to work is that the government built houses and rented them out cheap. They were decent houses too, with facilities near by.

That kept the private house builders and landlords honest. They had to offer something better than the already pretty good baseline. It kept prices down too.

Didn't always work, but when it did it was far better than what we have now.

Re:Why is this here?

[rtb61]

People are not doing unhealthy things on their own, not at all. Scammy lying manipulative pieces of shite are tricking them with addictive ingredients like MSG and false extremely repetitious ads, to drive them to consumer (don't even try to lie about the damaging psychological affects of the repeated ads, repeated and repeated and repeated, for maximum psychological impact). They lie all of the time and at every level from scammed deceitful B$ science as Public relations, covering everything from deceit about calories grading all equally even those one you can not possibly consumer against sugar (soluble carbohydrates), no sugar rush for children, yeah not on controlled diets, to exercise to combat consumption but most can not exercise as much as they eat.

So you have a right to choose but others do not have a right to lie, deceive, manipulate, corrupt and ruthlessly kill their victims. So no advertising for junk food, especially not targeted at children. Consumable calories listed on the box. All ingredients detailed. Any deceitful advertising and triple revenue for that product penalties. Also if their foods kill, they should suffer that criminal penalty, all involved from science to sales, all should pay the price with a custodial sentence and a controlled diet.

Re:Why is this here?

[EvilAlphonso]

Alcohol?

Re:Why is this here?

[jeremyp]

No, actually, it is a proposed ban by the City of London. The Government.

It amounts to the same thing. Transport for London is a government owned organisation and the Mayor of London is effectively in charge.

This "ban" really amounts to TfL saying "we won't accept advertising from fast food companies anymore".

Re:Why is this here?

[jeremyp]

My healthcare costs me less than in taxes US health insurance costs in premiums (quite a lot less actually). I don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions, losing health cover if I lose my job, having to pay extortionate bills if I go to or get taken to the wrong hospital or going bankrupt just because I am ill.

The USA could do with a bit of that kind of foisting. Frankly, in the modern world a country that has no universal healthcare system is barely civilised.

Re:Why is this here?

[jeremyp]

If Government were actually interested in serving you, they'd also ban advertising of lots of things like tobacco, alcohol,

Cigarette advertising is banned throughout the UK. You can't even put packets of cigarettes on open display if you are selling them. Alcohol advertising is severely restricted but not banned altogether.

Re:Why is this here?

[mvdwege]

He did no such thing, but thank you for showing your colours with that barely disguised "he's a moooslim!!!1!" dog whistle.

Re:Why is this here?

[serviscope_minor]

No, actually, it is a proposed ban by the City of London. The Government.

The City? Are you sure about that? Saddiq and TFL have nothing to do with the City. Plus tht's local government not "the government" which is almost always used to refer to Westminster. To double down it's certainly not the same government that has anything to do with the NHS.

It's not a ban on advertising from "global megacorps", it's a ban on fast food advertisements "from companies like McDonalds".

Which is totaly not a global megacorp. Neither is BurgerKing or KFC.

A large percentage of the advertising that would be affected comes from 'a handful' of major companies and brands," which means a large percentage would be for a lot of small companies -- not "global megacorps".

So? Small companies can't advertise cigarettes either.

Also from TFS: "Mayor Khan also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters (1,300 feet) of schools." That would include Uncle Bill's Chippy Shop, run by Uncle Bill and his family. Clearly not "global megacorps".

Yep. Uncle Bill can't get a free pass either. While the global fast food megacorps are extremely harmful, the food isn't less so just because it comes fom uncle bill.

You need to rein in your hatred for "global megacorp" and your attempt to justify stupid laws because they would only impact those you hate, because those stupid laws will hurt a lot of small players, too.

It's part of why we can't have nice things. Anytime there's an oppostunity to make money doing harm people will do so. Preventing them will never be perfectly precise, but it's worse to do nothing.

Re:Why is this here?

[Barsteward]

this is just one part of it part of a bigger plan, The main reason for the ban on public transport is to stop the kids pestering for these foods when they are out and about. Apparently its was done in Amsterdam (also as part of a grander plan) and its been working.

"I mean, in this day in age....does not pretty much everyone not already know that pre-processed junk food is bad for you? That overeating processed carbs and SUGAR will cause obesity?"
"Is it that somehow, the general public is now so fucking stupid they don't know this, and that these subway ads sway their behavior in such an unavoidable fashion that they must be protected from ads?" - its because ads work best on kids and a lot of parents are crap and can;t say "no".

Re: Why is this here?

[Barsteward]

thats the first time i've heard Benjamin Franklins phrase called a 15 year old buzzword.

Re:Why is this here?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Fully agree: universal healthcare, or healthcare that is well-regulated to the point were it is affordable, is a good thing. But not if it comes with a list of commandments.

Re:Why is this here?

[TheRaven64]

In addition to the other reply, sales of alcohol are age restricted. I have far less of a problem with adverts that encourage adults to make poor life choices than ones that encourage children to do the same. When modern adverts are using psychological manipulation techniques developed for propaganda, allowing advertising of any kind to target children is morally dubious.

Re: Why is this here?

[DatbeDank]

Bullshit! The NHS sucks for anything outside emergency care.

My wife had to wait 6 months to see an oncologist.

I had to wait 4 months to see a dermatologist for a cancerous mole.

The truth of the matter is: anyone in the UK with means gets private health insurance. That means your regular mid level office grunt is paying extra for private healthcare.

We ended up flying back to the US where both of our problems were taken care of in a week. A Week!

Not to mention the nurses and staff in the US weren't miserable as sin. Probably because they were busy striking which happens to be a fairly regular occurrence.

Re:Why is this here?

[LynnwoodRooster]

So - what defines "junk food"? The link I used earlier shows what many people consider healthy is actually worse than a Big Mac. Is "junk food" food with a certain amount of calories per serving? Too much sugar? Fat content? This seems to me really just a move to try to do "feel good" actions rather than deal with the underlying issues which tend to be lack of exercise - not just diet, but the other side of things.

Re:Why is this here?

[Obfuscant]

Plus tht's local government not "the government" which is almost always used to refer to Westminster.

It is government. I didn't say federal or local. In the US, the "government" is turtles all the way from the top to the locals. The Constitution we have applies to all of them.

The comment I replied to said that this was a decision by a local transit company. It isn't. It's the government. "London", "City of London", big fucking deal. It's like saying "New York" when referring to a mayor or the "city of New York."

Which is totaly not a global megacorp. Neither is BurgerKing or KFC.

Of course McDonalds is a megacorp. "Companies like McDonalds" are not necessarily megacorps. "Like" means "similar to", and in this context the similarity is "FAST allegedly bad FOOD". The POINT that you glibly ignore is that the prohibition is not against global megacorps, it's against the kind of food.

Yep. Uncle Bill can't get a free pass either.

Which proves the point I was making. Thanks for figuring that out.

It's part of why we can't have nice things.

What utter nonsense.

Re:Why is this here?

[mysidia]

Obesity is especially dangerous in London, as it makes it harder to dodge the knives, knives, knives.

Actually... they've banned carrying around knives in the UK now, and citizens will occasionally be searched
to make sure they dont' have any. So now they just need to be able to dodge wrenches, clubs, baseball bats, spears, sharp punji sticks, and other improvised weapons.

Perhaps you should worry about...

[dejavux]

All the knife, and acid attacks going on in your city.

Re:Perhaps you should worry about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a warzone out there
https://www.statista.com/chart/13767/london-homicide-rate-in-perspective/

Re:Perhaps you should worry about...

[giggleloop]

You people have to stop getting your news from Fox and Breitbart. The homicide rate in London is not even 1/30th of the US' worst cities, and is nearly half that of New York (all per capita).

Re:Perhaps you should worry about...

[thegarbz]

All the knife, and acid attacks going on in your city.

We'll just import some American mental illness case with an arsenal of AR-15s. Then you will find knife attacks won't be in the news anymore.

Lemme guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds -> baaaaaaaad, baaaaaaaaaan'd
Original British Fish&Chips -> Keep Calm and continue stuffin' your face

Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Chas]

Terrorism? "Oh. We'll just have to GET USED TO IT!" You know, like they do in 3rd world hell-holes where terror attacks are a daily thing.

Rape gangs? *TUMBLEWEEDS*

Police are ineffectual fops because criminals are ARMED and they AREN'T? And have to wait, sometimes for HOURS, for armed backup? *CRICKETS*

Violent crime going through the roof? "NOBODY NEEDS A KNIFE!" And then they arrest a guy with a potato peeler.

Fast Food? "OMGWTFBBQ! The evil has revealed itself! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!"

Just fucking pathetic.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[coastwalker]

Public health measures used to be debatable without crazy lies diverting attention. There is a problem with Western diet as shown by the epidemic of diabetes (approaching one in two people over the age of 50) whilst violent crime in London is comparatively low https://www.statista.com/chart...

The question is how do we tackle the crisis in public health? Do you have any suggestions other than repeating messages from Russian trolls who want to destroy our society? What is it with you people who have latched on an obsessive hatred to the extent that it supersedes the ability to talk about anything else?

Whether banning fast food advertisements is a useful move is debatable. I think that a great deal more attention needs to be paid to researching the causes of obesity and the Western diseases that are correlated with our diet. Research that must be done with government money and not food industry money as has often been done in the recent past. There is a lot of evidence coming to light that says that sugar and a lack of dietary fiber in our diet is much more of a problem than saturated fat or lack of exercise or overeating. The sugar causes metabolic disease and the lack of fiber damages our gut microbiome. Reducing fast food intake does not in itself address these two issues completely.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because diabetes means dick if your civilization is unstable enough that you're going to die before getting it from eating poorly!

Never mind the fact that banning junk food advertising is a far cry from banning the products themselves.

No no... anybody pointing out the truth that there are bigger issues (that you want to ignore) is a RUSSIAN TROLL.

And please conveniently forget the fact that up until a few years ago the GOVERNMENT said that breads, pasta and starchy vegetables like corn, peas and potatoes were healthy and should be eaten in abundance (that would be sugar)

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

murder rate

Honor killings. Please make sure you are working with the latest version of the Newspeak dictionary.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Trailer Trash]

Public health measures used to be debatable without crazy lies diverting attention.

Go ahead and show us one lie - just one - in what he wrote. Should be easy.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Chas]

Sorry. But these people are adults.
And I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility.
This kind of thing smacks of Big Brother and totalitarianism.

As to how we tackle the crisis in public health?
Simple. WE LET THEM DIE.

It's not a nice thing to hear.
But these people aren't children and can make their own choices.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[jimbobxxx]

murder rate in London is higher than NYC and this is considering that London is the socialist utopia with free mental health & no guns.

For 2 months, it is higher. Don't think its yet something to draw conclusions from. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-4...

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[jimbobxxx]

Public health measures used to be debatable without crazy lies diverting attention.

Go ahead and show us one lie - just one - in what he wrote. Should be easy.

Yes it is. First sentence:

Terrorism? "Oh. We'll just have to GET USED TO IT!" You know, like they do in 3rd world hell-holes where terror attacks are a daily thing.

Don't think he said that.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Calydor]

You're right, he didn't use the exact words "Get used to it".

He used the words "part and parcel of life in a big city".

https://www.standard.co.uk/new...

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[fredrated]

Seems reasonable to me. In American cities we've had to get used to being gunned down by random drive-by's, mass shooters, various random acts of violence. The levels of these killings are much greater than the occasional terrorist attack in the UK.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[edtice1559]

Are you sure? I imagine that there is a lot of added sugar in fast food products. Maybe not the burgers. But certainly the beverages. Maybe the buns. Definitely the 'yogurt.'

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[AmiMoJo]

I'd rather take the incredibly small risk of being in a terror attack than put up with all the TSA / NSL / armed idiots everywhere bullshit you suffer with.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Chas]

The problem is, I have a far better chance of falling off a bike and dying than I do of seeing a mass shooting, let alone dying in one.

But hey, if you wanna get picky about how someone is going to kill/maim you (machetes, knives, trucks and acid? COOL! Guns? NO WAY!), I guess.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[thegarbz]

Terrorism? "Oh. We'll just have to GET USED TO IT!" You know, like they do in 3rd world hell-holes where terror attacks are a daily thing.

126 people have died in Terror attacks in the UK since the turn of the millennium.
There were over 1000 in the 15 years prior to that and over 2000 in the 15 years prior to that.

Yeah. This level of terrorism is something I could really get used to.

Rape gangs? *TUMBLEWEEDS*

Yes crickets are usually the sound you hear after police go about their business of identifying arresting convicting and imprisoning / deporting the perpetrators. What were you expecting? A parade?

Police are ineffectual fops because criminals are ARMED and they AREN'T? And have to wait, sometimes for HOURS, for armed backup? *CRICKETS*
Violent crime going through the roof? "NOBODY NEEDS A KNIFE!" And then they arrest a guy with a potato peeler.

LOL, Breitbart much? The police in the UK are doing just fine. And the homicide rate in the past 5 years is the lowest it's been in 3 decades. Knife crime was up the past 2 years, but not appreciably, and you're far safer in London than many US cities.

Fast Food? "OMGWTFBBQ! The evil has revealed itself! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!"

Now to take this full circle. You started with sensationalistic terrorism: 126 deaths since the start of the year. Let's end with the 30000 people who die from obesity related illnesses every year.

That's right, more people die from obesity related illness every year than the combination of:
Terrorism.
+ Young girls getting raped by rape gangs
+ Police getting shot by bad guys.
+ People getting stabbed.

Mind you if you get threatened by someone carrying a knife (not stabbed or killed) then in combination with all the above you're about on par with the number of people who die in the UK due to obesity related illnesses.

Just fucking pathetic.

Look I know where you're coming from. I too read the Daily Mail. The difference is I do it because it's important to read what stupid people read so you can understand their stupid comments.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[jimbobxxx]

Except, they aren't?

Unless you're a gang member, of course. Funny how people tend to ignore that one detail. The vast majority of murder victims (and murderers) are gangbangers. Gangs kill gangs, and everyone else whines about "how violent Americans are". Tell me, how's Sweden these days? How many grenade attacks have there been this year? 8? 10? How many grenade attacks have there been in the US?

Don't know about Sweden. Maybe you could help Wikipedia who obviously have not been told about these attacks.

Over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There have been a few school shootings in US. Maybe these are all gangs? https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...

Re: Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[mapkinase]

I misread your name as Chav.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Trailer Trash]

Seems reasonable to me. In American cities we've had to get used to being gunned down by random drive-by's, mass shooters, various random acts of violence. The levels of these killings are much greater than the occasional terrorist attack in the UK.

And, yet, the violence level in gun-free London is higher now than New York City. They're just using knives.

Weird. As if those of us who say guns aren't the problem are correct or something.

Oh, wait. We are.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[TheRaven64]

Sorry. But these people are adults.

Everyone that rides the London Underground is an adult? I have no idea why you'd even think that was a plausible premise.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Chas]

Fine, enjoy living in your cage then.

Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron.

[Xest]

No, it's not. The only measure by which London was more violent than New York was by cherry picking the one and a half months of the year where the snow was so bad in New York that no one went out, whilst London was relatively mild.

London is still vastly safe, and has vastly less violent crime than New York if you use a sane, non-cherry picked measure, such as a year, or multiple years:

https://www.independent.co.uk/...

"In the calendar year of 2016 there were 334 murders in New York. In the financial year 2016-17 (1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017) there were 102 murders in London, suggesting â" but not proving - that at that point the UKâ(TM)s capitalâ(TM)s murder rate for any given 12-month period was less than a third of New Yorkâ(TM)s.

Similarly, New York had 352 murders in the calendar year 2015, while Londonâ(TM)s Metropolitan Police recorded 109 homicides between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016."

So really, New York is still more than 3 times as deadly as London. The fact someone managed to find a single 6 week period out of hundreds over the last few decades where the London figure just edged higher for a short outlying period is a prime example of cherry picking stats.

If you think cherry picking makes you correct, I've got a bridge to sell you, because 3.3x more deaths is not evidence that New York is safer. I could therefore be just as an obnoxious dick as you're being and claim that it's in fact evidence that guns are the problem and say, well, I'm right, because this proves it.

But I'm not a retard like you, and I'll happily admit that correlation is causation and that whilst guns COULD be the reason New York is more than 3 times more deadly as London, I don't have any evidence, just as you don't have any evidence to the contrary. The fact is you don't know, and I don't know, but to dismiss it as a possibility is just flagrant willful ignorance, especially as both cities are pretty damn close demographically, and even Bill Bratton has advised in both cities police forces meaning guns are one of the only key differentiators, which in turn means you're more likely to be wrong, than right, that they're not a factor in New York being so much more deadly.

A bit of overreach

[Ayano]

I get the whole 'healthy lifestyle' campaigns to battle obesity, but this essentially groups junk food with cigarettes which was similarly banned in the US from public 'mass media' advertisement (tele/billboard).

At that point you're classifying categories of comfort food as 'junk'. How long is it until chocolate is also junk food? Junk food is only dangerous by over indulgence. Smoking however is deliberate damage to the lungs, even if 'moderated' just like alcohol is to the brain. Oddly enough alcohol has no such advertising ban, as they 'self moderate' to only legal drinking age markets supposedly.

Re:A bit of overreach

[religionofpeas]

this essentially groups junk food with cigarettes

With heart disease and stroke both outnumbering lung cancer as national diseases, that's not a bad idea.

Junk food is only dangerous by over indulgence

Junk food is carefully designed to promote over indulgence.

Re:A bit of overreach

[iggymanz]

except "junk food" is not the problem causing that heart disease and stroke. you're wrong spouting that phrase off.

instead the still legal to advertise processed foods being eaten as the main course are.

junk food snacks are not the problem. not in the UK, not anywhere else

Re:A bit of overreach

[SuperKendall]

With heart disease and stroke both outnumbering lung cancer as national diseases, that's not a bad idea.

But is junk food really the cause of that, or is it simple over-eating in general? I have junk food from time to time and am not overweight, and have a healthy heart...

Junk food is carefully designed to promote over indulgence.

That is simply false. It's designed to be tasty, nothing more and nothing less. You can indeed have just one, that is a choice.

Just as you can choose to have just one, or seventy, of ANY food item,.

Re:A bit of overreach

[iggymanz]

again, it's the "main courses" being engineered to be addictive that is the main problem. look at the ingredients on the crap most americans eat for lunch and dinner.

the snacks don't matter

Just like Boulder

[Monkey-Wrench-Inc]

Boulder (CO) decide to heavily tax sugary beverages (aka, soda), but do nothing about the problems related to homelessness.

Re:Just like Boulder

[Monkey-Wrench-Inc]

*decided

Re:Just like Boulder

[Stolovaya]

You misspelled Seattle, WA.

Re:Vending machines?

[DickBreath]

Forget Vending Machines.

If the goal is to get people to stop seeing Ads for junk food, then when they board the subway, have someone who hands each person some junk food they can eat to keep them distracted from the ads you don't want them to see.

Simple solution. Now there is no need to bank junk food ads. Nobody would watch them. Everyone too distracted with the junk food they're eating.

Re:Only advertisement permitted

[Elvis Impersonator]

Woman laughing alone with salad.

Google it.

oh my god.

Monster Munch is not junk food

[Elvis Impersonator]

what about Monster Munch? Can we still advertise that?

Re:Monster Munch is not junk food

[serviscope_minor]

Only the pickled onion one. I mean sure the flaming hot are nice and all but only after the picked onion are gone.

junk food not problem, unsubstantiated nonsense

[iggymanz]

The foods being eaten for meals are the problem, not the snacks. it's still legal to advertise those harmful "foods", so the government are being idiots. Nanny states are always run by the low watt bulbs

Re:junk food not problem, unsubstantiated nonsense

[gweihir]

Well, to be fair, so is any state today. Somebody smart in power is the absolute exception. And the level of stupidity just continues to get worse.

"Junk Food" is a slang term.

[SeaFox]

I'd be curious how they are going to come up with a legal definition for what is and is not junk food. Does it have to be like Cheetos and Mountain Dew, or will McDonald's no longer be able to advertise either? And if fast food is no longer allowed, do we have to set the standard of a casual dining restaurant? You can get healthy food quickly. too depending on the business.

Re:"Junk Food" is a slang term.

[PPH]

British cooking.

Re:"Junk Food" is a slang term.

[serviscope_minor]

British cooking.

If you can find someone who got obese on carrots that had been boiled for 6 hours then left to dry under a canteen heat lamp, then I'd support the ban.

Re:"Junk Food" is a slang term.

[AmiMoJo]

We do like deep fat frying stuff though...

Re:"Junk Food" is a slang term.

[serviscope_minor]

True and honestly I like institutional cooking (other than the carrots).

Pizza and chips followed by a slab of sponge with custard. Cannot be beaten.

Re:"Junk Food" is a slang term.

[AmiMoJo]

I'm lost for words.

Dedicated safe bicycle paths instead of bans

[Max_W]

If a person cycles to work about 40 minutes on a safe green bicycle path, and back home 40 minutes. She/he can eat about anything.

Re:Dedicated safe bicycle paths instead of bans

[Quantum gravity]

Well you burn a bit more energy cycling instead of driving, but its not that much. Cycling at a moderate pace burns about 650 calories per hour. A large doughnut can contain about 300 calories, and also hydrogenated oils that are not good for your heart.

Re:Dedicated safe bicycle paths instead of bans

[Wulf2k]

They could happily eat 0.01 mg of rat poison, and they could down that 900 mg of sodium over an extended period of time without much ill effect.

Re:Dedicated safe bicycle paths instead of bans

[Quantum gravity]

Replying to myself because that should have read _partially_ hydrogenated oils. They contain trans fats that increases the shelf life of fried and baked foods.

Re:Dedicated safe bicycle paths instead of bans

[Max_W]

Well you burn a bit more energy cycling instead of driving, but its not that much. Cycling at a moderate pace burns about 650 calories per hour. A large doughnut can contain about 300 calories, and also hydrogenated oils that are not good for your heart.

A biological system does not work on arithmetic principles. Cycling every day, before and after work in the fresh air, reduces anxiety. It is the proven fact.

People over-eat not because they are hungry, but due to anxiety. And the major cause of anxiety is that we engineered out physical activity from our daily life.

Try it, and you will see that one and a half hour cycling daily would reduce stress and weight significantly. But daily on cycling paths, not driving to a gym and rotating a stationary machine.

What is it?

[SuperDre]

What is junk food really? when is something junk food?

Excellent idea, given the implications of change

[WillAffleckUW]

Remember, we all subsidize the weak-willed tube riders who drink fancy alcohol and munch on crisps instead of live an upright life.

Science

[backslashdot]

Junk food is a junk term. Furthermore, there is zero evidence the food traditionally thought of ad junk food is bad for you. Extreme quantities of ANY food is bad. There obviously can be apecific ingredients that make certain foods worse than others, how about simply remindig people to reduce their intakes of those specific ingredients?

The point

[Okian Warrior]

What's the point?

Ramadan (May 15 -> June 14).