Ban on junk food TV adverts before 9pm to come in next year

[Still Waters]

A ban on junk food adverts being shown on TV before 21:00 will come into force on 1 October 2025, the government has confirmed.

Labour said the watershed on junk food advertising would be enforced alongside a total ban on paid-for online adverts, both aimed at tackling childhood obesity.

The Conservatives had previously committed to the ban in 2021 when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but it was pushed back to give the industry more time to prepare.

Health Minister Andrew Gwynne said confirming the scope of restrictions and the date they would be implemented provided clarity for businesses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2n2g5wze4o

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, Still Waters said:

A ban on junk food adverts being shown on TV before 21:00 will come into force on 1 October 2025, the government has confirmed.

Labour said the watershed on junk food advertising would be enforced alongside a total ban on paid-for online adverts, both aimed at tackling childhood obesity.

The Conservatives had previously committed to the ban in 2021 when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but it was pushed back to give the industry more time to prepare.

Health Minister Andrew Gwynne said confirming the scope of restrictions and the date they would be implemented provided clarity for businesses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2n2g5wze4o

Next there needs to be ban on junk food altogether. I wonder what the macrap restaurants will do on this case. Will they fight the decision in the courts of law or just leave and never come back. What about the local maccrap food chains? It much worth hundreds of billions of dollars as a business.

[L.A.T.1961]

20 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

Next there needs to be ban on junk food altogether. I wonder what the macrap restaurants will do on this case. Will they fight the decision in the courts of law or just leave and never come back. What about the local maccrap food chains? It much worth hundreds of billions of dollars as a business.

I don't think junk food can be regarded as junk food compared to 10 yrs ago.

Salt, sugar and fat have all been taken out of what was called junk food. 

So after the food industry has reformulated their recipes, at their own cost, and to suit new legislation they will be rewarded with being unable to show these products to the public.

Of course it costs the Gov nothing and they can stand and crow about how morally righteous it is to remove temptation from the proletariat.

But actually more nanny state.

[MrAnderson]

4 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I don't think junk food can be regarded as junk food compared to 10 yrs ago.

Salt, sugar and fat have all been taken out of what was called junk food. 

So after the food industry has reformulated their recipes, at their own cost, and to suit new legislation they will be rewarded with being unable to show these products to the public.

Of course it costs the Gov nothing and they can stand and crow about how morally righteous it is to remove temptation from the proletariat.

But actually more nanny state.

Are you from the UK or the US? Have you gone out to take a look at the level of fitness of ordinary everyday people?! What do you think the main causes of obesity are? It's more of a rhetorical question but Americans and British are overweight and obese in great numbers.

[Still Waters]

What food and drink might be banned?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3d33l53r9o

[pellinore]

On 9/13/2024 at 5:53 PM, L.A.T.1961 said:

I don't think junk food can be regarded as junk food compared to 10 yrs ago.

Salt, sugar and fat have all been taken out of what was called junk food. 

So after the food industry has reformulated their recipes, at their own cost, and to suit new legislation they will be rewarded with being unable to show these products to the public.

Of course it costs the Gov nothing and they can stand and crow about how morally righteous it is to remove temptation from the proletariat.

But actually more nanny state.

I thought you were cleverer than this- obviously not. Ultra-processed foods have been in the spotlight for a year or so as the damage is being recognised.

Of course it costs the Gov nothing and they can stand and crow about how morally righteous it is to remove temptation from the proletariat. Like the nannies who keep on about the dangers of smoking and obesity? How dare they! We're British, and we will defend to the death our right to weigh 20 stones and smoke 20 a day until our death, even if it is at the age of 40! 

Edited September 15 by pellinore

[pellinore]

The biology is complicated but one thing is certain: carbs can hijack our brain chemistry, playing fast and loose with the hormones and neurotransmitters that are linked to mood, reward and motivation. A fix of sweet chocolate feels good because it triggers bits of the brain designed to feel pleasure.

And when supermarket shelves heave with hyper-palatable, ultra-processed foods (UPF) that are literally designed to be addictive, we're simply ill-equipped to resist.

The most common 'drug' foods – pizza, chocolate, crisps, biscuits, ice cream, cheeseburgers, fizzy drinks and cake – are all high in sugar or artificial sweeteners and often packed with a cocktail of chemicals.

Six signs you are a food addict: It's NOT just a 'lack of willpower' and ultra-processed foods are making it worse, explains DR JEN UNWIN | Daily Mail Online (archive.ph)

Edited September 16 by pellinore

[L.A.T.1961]

I am sure the Gov will eventually issue citizens with a device to measure all blood levels constantly so we can adjust our food intake by the min.

I would rather decide what to eat based on experience, my grandparents did eat four times a day. Breakfast, lunch, tea and supper.

They would consume fatty meats, put salt in food, have sugary deserts, and the blokes would wash it down with a beer or three.

They lived well into their 80's and my mom's mom was 96.

So let the state do as it wishes but I went to work on an egg for years, before and after it was thought an issue.

And I am still here.😉

 

[Duke Wellington]

It is not for the state to nanny the population.

If people want to have 100 cheeseburgers with fries, 50 pizzas, and 50 other takeaways per year, then that is their choice. I am against this ban, but do think the problem is with state healthcare. If they get themselves into the state where they are obese, their health costs should be chargeable.

[MrAnderson]

21 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

It is not for the state to nanny the population.

If people want to have 100 cheeseburgers with fries, 50 pizzas, and 50 other takeaways per year, then that is their choice. I am against this ban, but do think the problem is with state healthcare. If they get themselves into the state where they are obese, their health costs should be chargeable.

That's very interesting and I have heard the same arguments made by others. But how do you charge people based on their eating habits? Obesity is a major health issue and it contributes to a range of serious diseases. Imagine what could happen if someone who is obese and have a range of illnesses is charged according to their weight and height?

[Duke Wellington]

10 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

That's very interesting and I have heard the same arguments made by others. But how do you charge people based on their eating habits? Obesity is a major health issue and it contributes to a range of serious diseases. Imagine what could happen if someone who is obese and have a range of illnesses is charged according to their weight and height?

If they have an obesity caused health problem they should pay for treatment.

If they cannot afford it, tough, but with the exception of pain relief while they die.

Edited September 18 by Duke Wellington

[Bed of chaos]

Aside from children you can't force a healthy lifestyle upon everyone. With medical restrictions, I get it. Though life's not that simple.

Edited September 18 by Bed of chaos

[Setton]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:23 PM, Duke Wellington said:

If people want to have 100 cheeseburgers with fries, 50 pizzas, and 50 other takeaways per year, then that is their choice. 

And they still can. The ban relates to advertising pre-watershed, not the food itself.

As the OP says, it's about children's health.

I'm all for freedom of choice but you wouldn't let a child live solely on ice cream, would you? Same logic.

And sadly too many parents today don't know how to say no to their own children.

[acidhead]

On 9/12/2024 at 9:16 AM, Still Waters said:

The Conservatives had previously committed to the ban in 2021 when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but it was pushed back to give the industry more time to prepare.

Let them eat cake