A campaign group has been formed to reduce the amount of sugar added to food and soft drinks in an effort to tackle obesity and diabetes in the UK.
Ah, yes, another fake charity set up to hector and bully us in the name of health fascism. Another excuse for the third sector to steal even more of our money in order to keep themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
Action on Sugar has been set up by the team behind Consensus Action on Salt and Health (Cash), which has pushed for cuts to salt intake since the 1990s.
That bunch of parasites isn’t satisfied with nagging us about salt, they want to nag us about sugar now, as well – despite it being none of their damned business what we put into our bodies.
Like Cash, Action on Sugar will set targets for the food industry to add less sugar bit by bit so that consumers do not notice the difference in taste.
I’m sorry….? Setting targets? Who the flying fuck do these arrogant little shitbags think they are setting targets? FFS! Words do not adequately describe the sheer effrontery of these scumbags. It is none of their damned business what we put into our bodies. Oh, yeah, I said that already. Well, it needs saying again.
It says the reduction could reverse or halt the obesity epidemic and would have a significant impact in reducing chronic disease in a way that “is practical, will work and will cost very little”.
There. Is. No. Obesity. Epidemic.
There is, however, deliberate and cynical manipulation of figures to make it look as if there is one – the merely slightly overweight are now lumped into “obesity” so that these charlatans can spout scary figures designed to support their totalitarian wet dreams of controlling what we eat and drink.
Action on Sugar chairman Graham MacGregor, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine and set up Cash in 1996, said: “We must now tackle the obesity epidemic both in the UK and worldwide.
There. Is. No. Obesity. Epidemic.
Oh, yeah, remember the vile Arnott of ASH telling us there was no slippery slope and that tobacco was a unique product? Yup, remember that? Of course you do.
Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool, UK, Simon Capewell says, “Sugar is the new tobacco.”
Sigh… Didn’t see that one coming, did you?
I shouldn’t. I know I shouldn’t but I unblocked Twatter and found this utter shite three posts down.
Modi Mwatsama ?@ModiMwatsama 2h
Congrats @actiononsugar on your launch: Govt must level playing field for reformulation & taste adaptation
And this Modi Mwatsama is…
Director, Global Health at the UK Health Forum.
Registered Nutritionist (Public Health).
DrPH candidate, LSHT
Surely there is a limit to the number of fuckwits can suck at the teat of the taxpayer.
Update
Went down the twatter page and bugger me they are all fuckwits sucking at the taxpayer teat except one, verybritishdude who stuck it right up them.
Words cannot convey just how much I hate these people.
“Surely there is a limit to the number of fuckwits can suck at the teat of the taxpayer.”
Clearly not… :/
In fact I think many of us did see it coming, these parasites are always looking for another cause to line their own pockets.
Tobacco
Salt
Alcohol
Sugar
etc ad infinitum, the list is endless if the climate is right and there’s a cash incentive for THEM.
The trouble is not too much sugar but laziness, you see there is not an obesity epidemic but there is a growing number of fat children, and this in main is due to the laziness of parents who don’t want to cook and would rather fill their kids with crap food full of fat and shit,
I used to cook my kids decent meals every day, mcdonalds and KFC etc were special treats, VERY special treats and very rare, I have often walked past mcdonalds at breakfast time and have seen very young children in there every day for their breakfast.
Obesity is on the rise (not at the rate suggested by these morons mind you) but it is fuck all to do with sugar or these nosey parkers it’s to do with laziness and lack of proper cookery skills and too many parents with cars.
My children walked everywhere and still do as a result they walked miles every day and got enough exercise to not become obese.
The rise in weighty people is due to many factors not just sugar or fat or unhealthy diet.
It’s also due to the rise in technology and tv being used as a baby sitter whilst parents play PC games.
It’s just indicative of modern living and sod all to do with sugar or money grabbing morons.
Being a tad sanctimonious and judgmental there, Kath.
I’m far from convinced that you are right about “a growing number of fat children”:
http://www.healthylifestylebalance.com/childhood-obesity.html
“too many parents with cars”
Heaven forbid, why don’t you start a fake charity to stop the working class having two cars? Single Car Restriction Among Parents Society (SCRAPS).
If you lived where I live you would see the number of very large children waddling around and I have to tell you there are a lot of them, I can only speak as I find.
I have read several articles of late about the drop in obesity in children and have to say I have yet to SEE it.
But it is none of my business, I am merely sharing my view and my experiences and how I did things not saying it is the RIGHT way, nor even that I am right.
Funny I thought this whole blog and comment thing was about sharing opinions.
I have no problem with people (working class or otherwise) having cars as many cars as they like, what I do have a problem with parents who drive children to school when they only live 10. 15 minutes walk away from the school.
I am working class so that has no relevance whatsoever I never said people should not have cars, I merely said maybe people should let their children walk more.
Sanctimonious, hmm first time i’ve been called that opinionate yes very.
So what.
I don’t need a fake charity there are far too many floating around and whilst I would love to have as much money as those morons, I fear even I am not sanctimonious enough to be of any use to them.
We have a school at the back of our house, and a nursery at the front (You ask why I HATE the wee bastards!?). Not ONE of the little shits is what you would call overweight.
There are at least four schools within a two mile radius of where I live. More so in the area I use for motorcycle training. I get to see hundreds of children coming and going to school. I cannot recall when I last saw a fat one.
Of course, some children are fat during their primary years, but by the time they leave secondary school, they are beanpoles. This is a normal part of the growth cycle – we used to call it puppy fat. We accepted it as normal – because it is normal. These days, every child must be uniformly skinny, such is the pressure being imposed by the healthists. This is not normal and it is not healthy.
I was being sarcastic.
If there is a growing number of fat children (it’s hard to say either way: many children are flabby but lose it during adolescence) then yes it could be down to “lazy”, or more likely brainwashed, parents but I doubt the reason has anything to do with cooking. A home-cooked meal is not, per se, any more or less likely to be “healthy” than a shop or take-away bought one (and in either case it is quantity which matters). The problem, if there is one, more likely has to do with children sitting in front of computers/games consoles/TV as opposed to doing things vaguely physical. By that I don’t mean sport (I detest forced or organised sport) but merely walking to their friends’ houses or “playing out” on bikes etc.
If there is a problem with “lazy” parenting it is that parents allow or encourage children to spend time indoors either to (a) protect them against mainly-ficticious peadophiles and other risks or (b) reduce the chance of them “getting into trouble” or avoid having to deal with the consequences thereof. Both are the consequences of government brainwashing backed by their mates in the media. And let’s not forget the fact that schools give hours of homework to kids, whether they need it or not, which further coerces them into sedentary indoor activities.
Or from the kids’ point of view: “playing out” is only fun if it involves pushing the limits. Daily venturing down to the council-provided playing field to do an hour of allotted supervised running around simply doesn’t cut it, especially when you can go on adventures to another world in a computer game. Kids used to enjoy playing out because they could be somewhat naughty. Yes they caused trouble on occasion but when they did they got a bollocking and (usually) learned from it. Nowadays they are watched most of the time by officials/technology/parents, yet normal members of the public are very wary of exercising any control when the mark is overstepped – and when they do it usually backfires.
The real reason why there is an obesity “epidemic,” I am reliably informed, is because the definition of “obese” (from a medical point of view) was re-defined about (?) 10-15 years ago. With a stroke of a pen people who one day would have been classed as “overweight” the next day were “obese.” They hadn’t gained any extra weight in that time, of course, but the classification had been significantly widened. It’s also the reason why we now have three types of obesity – obese, clinically obese and morbidly obese.
Quite why they did this is hard to say. The tinfoil hat-wearer in me wants to say that it was done precisely to facilitate yet another health scare to give the masses something else to worry about, now that most of them had been bludgeoned into giving up smoking and drinking and fried foods. Perhaps they thought that those masses were (perish the thought!) relaxing and enjoying their lives now that they thought they had cheated the Grim Reaper through their abstemious living. The non tinfoil-hat wearer in me thinks that maybe there may have been another, perhaps more well-meaning reason behind it, although if this was the case I’d say it was both misguided and naïve.
But whatever the reason it was perhaps inevitable that all number of crusading health fascists would emerge from the woodwork with their hands open for Government funding for their various oh-so-worthy causes. As their mimicking look-at-us-we’re-just-like-the-anti-smoking-campaigners-of-yore tactics show, it worked a treat for the anti-smoking movement, so why not them, too?
Well Kath, regarding kids and exercise, you will be overjoyed to know that the fake charity folk are right on it. A radio news report yesterday informed me that a large proportion of parents have no idea what the government guidelines are on the amount of daily exercise to be taken by children of various ages. Presumably the next step is to make sure that this appalling gap in our knowledge is rectified. Following that will be the imaginative ways of getting us all to comply.
Judging by the comments left by readers of several newspapers I’ve glanced at covering this ‘story’ it’s dispiriting just how many people now think that sugar is not only poisonous it’s ‘TOXIC’, and the government should ‘do something’ to protect us against pernicious and greedy food companies. Before the smoking ban I had no idea how easy it was to manipulate public opinion (yes I was so naieve not so long ago). I’m convinced that tea and coffee too will seriously be in the firing line soon because of ‘evil’ caffeine. And yes, I too loathe and despise these people and their cruddy little organisations.
They’ll be back to salt after that, then potatoes.