View Full Version : If you're a FAT GREEDY CUNT BEWARE!
Calls For Fat Tax On Unhealthy Food
Experts are putting pressure on the Government to introduce a "fat tax" on unhealthy foods, saying it could save thousands of lives a year.
A new study claims that a duty on food containing lots of fat, salt and sugar would prevent more than 3,000 people dying of heart disease and strokes every 12 months.
It would mean the cost of some of Britain's favourite foods like pizza, chips and chocolate, going up in price.
And it would put an extra 4.6% - or 67p per week - on food bills, which
would total some £2bn annually across the UK.
The idea was previously rejected by Tony Blair, who in 2004 said it was "too nanny state".
The latest research was led by Dr Oliver Mytton at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham and published in the Journal Of Epidemiology And Community Health.
The authors noted that any moves to tax unhealthy foods were likely to be strongly resisted by the food industry - and some people would keep buying unhealthy food anyway because they loved the taste so much.
Tim Marsh, the associate director of the National Heart Forum, said: "The UK is facing a crisis in diet-related illness, including obesity, caused by over-consumption of foods high in fat, sugar and salt.
"There is no single solution and we need to carefully explore the potential of all possible strategies to tackle the issue.
"We should pay special attention to any intervention, such as food taxation, which could - if carefully applied - be a proportionate response to the size of the problem and the impact of poor diet on our future health and prosperity."
But Food & Drink Federation director of communications Julian Hunt said: "This is utter nonsense.
"Aside from the fact that the researchers think it is okay to tax perfectly nutritious foods, such as cheese, which are an important part of any healthy diet, such a move would be a regressive tax on the least well-off, who already spend more of their disposable income on food and drink."
Around one in four UK adults is obese - a rate that is now matched among 11 to 15-year-olds.
In the UK, someone has a heart attack every two minutes, with around 230,000 people suffering one each year.
THE FUCKIN NANNY STATE AGAIN.
IF THE FAT CUNTS WANT TO EAT TOO MUCH AND DIE SOONER THAN THEY WOULD IF THEY HAD A HEALTHY DIET AND TOOK EXCERCISE, THEN SO FUCKIN WHAT LET 'EM DIE!:reading:
dvtimes
07-12-07, 09:04 AM
Its a rather odd situation we have with the UK goverment.
On one hand it moans that we eat unhealthy, yet its alowed us to eat lots of foods that would be baned in other eu countries as well as the usa. For instance many E addadives are baned in germany and even the usa. Yet the uk goverment lets you eat this stuff. Only this week they have found an E nomber addative in some common foods are now found to give cancer.
Its a bit like the environment. It moans, yet in other eu countries, such as plastic bags are baned. The usa for years have offered paper bags. Even some african countries are now banning platic bags. Also in several eu countries bio fuel is tax free, yet in the uk its taxed.
Although, there is some logic to taxing harmfull foods. The reason being is often they are cheaper than healthy foods simply as they are full of unheathy gunk to keep costs down,. and as such people buy it as its cheaper. |So the logic i guess is that if you put unhealthy foods in the same price range as healthy then people may opt for healthy. Often when people are asked why they buy junk, its often simply as its cheaper.
Plus in the next few years MANY people are so fat and unhealthy we WILL see lots more people with fat related illnesses which the extra tax will help pay for.
So while Ioften have a go at this labour goverment (as i hate them), this is probably a good thing.
I suspect that there ral motives is to get more tax rather than caring about the population, but at least even if there real motives or not good, the result may be.
Its the fuckin nanny state again, do this, don't do, that lets tax this, blah blah blah.
If these fat cunts want to walk past the fruit and veg in the super market and fill their trolleys with crisp,bisquits and chocolate why should they be penalised for their food choices.It is about our right to choose being eroded.:reading:
dvtimes
07-12-07, 09:27 AM
Its the fuckin nanny state again, do this, don't do, that lets tax this, blah blah blah.
If these fat cunts want to walk past the fruit and veg in the super market and fill their trolleys with crisp,bisquits and chocolate why should they be penalised for their food choices.It is about our right to choose being eroded.:reading:
For many its not a choice, its cost. They buy the cheapest.
'Do this, dont do this', you will find thats known as the law. You will find most countries use somthing called the law.
But it does not sound like anyone is stopping you eating such foods, simply adding a tax. we have tax on fuel, sigs, drink, but I bet you still drive, and have a sig and a drink.
The result is probably that you will end up with the same products, but with the bad stuff taken out and rteplaced by the good stuff.
Put it this way, go to many other countries and you will see the same food products as in the uk, but without the E nombers. I think I am correct to sday even in the usa you will not find e nombers on foods.
Making the cost of fags 90% tax doesn't seem to have had much impact on reducing smoking, so VAT on burgers will do dick all. there's also no reason why a burger should be high carb, high fat in the first place, so its 90% snobbery.
Low fat, low salt crisps are awful, I'd rather eat the bag than the contents.
And as anyone who lives in a hot country will tell you, if you feel crappy on a hot day, then you need salt as much as you need water.
(You can keep your sleazy "salty water" jokes to yourselves thank you very much, hope I didn't offend anyone by saying cunt again)
wankmaster
07-12-07, 09:51 AM
More bollocks from a socialist government that want to control every aspect of our lives ( for our own good of course ). Yes, we need laws, but as few as practical, and the government to do the bare basics of what the citizen cannot do for himself. Other than that, they should keep their thieving hands off our money.
Socialism is shit. It's never worked wherever it has been tried, but strange enough that doesn't deter people arguing for it.
For many its not a choice, its cost. They buy the cheapest.
'Do this, dont do this', you will find thats known as the law. You will find most countries use somthing called the law.
But it does not sound like anyone is stopping you eating such foods, simply adding a tax. we have tax on fuel, sigs, drink, but I bet you still drive, and have a sig and a drink.
The result is probably that you will end up with the same products, but with the bad stuff taken out and rteplaced by the good stuff.
Put it this way, go to many other countries and you will see the same food products as in the uk, but without the E nombers. I think I am correct to sday even in the usa you will not find e nombers on foods.
E numbers where removed from most food aimed at children years ago and any food that has E numbers in them has to clearly label the food with what E numbers are present in the food.
There are EU standards and protocols that protect the consumer by making sure that all food additives etc are clearly marked on all food sold.
You talk about choice and things being the cheapest, 1lbs apples approx £1.09, depends where you shop or a packet of chocolate digestives approx £1.38 again depends where you shop.There are many other examples.
And why is it the fat cunts that whinge and whine about the price of food live in council houses with large plasma/lcd tv's, smoke 40 fags a day and drink like fishes. It's a culture thing, the fat cunts have no culture and no self repsect.
It is the choice of the shopper what they eat.
TAX THE FUCKIN FAT TWATS FOR EVERY POUND THEY ARE OVERWEIGHT AND TAX THE UGLY CUNTS AS WELL.:reading:
And why is it the fat cunts that whinge and whine about the price of food live in council houses with large plasma/lcd tv's, smoke 40 fags a day and drink like fishes. It's a culture thing, the fat cunts have no culture and no self repsect.
:Yes, but I'm a webmaster now.
Yes, but I'm a webmaster now.
lol
Benny_MN
07-12-07, 09:59 AM
Yes, but I'm a webmaster now.
:takethat:
So you fit the profile even more now!
daveydude
07-12-07, 10:06 AM
Guys calm down - this is NOTHING to do with the government. It's an independent paper.
The latest research was led by Dr Oliver Mytton at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham and published in the Journal Of Epidemiology And Community Health.
When the tabloids print stories like this, you need to read past the headline. The "nanny state" hysteria in this thread was espcially funny when the article actually quotes Blair as saying a fat tax would be "too nanny state".
Wankmaster, did you post in the wrong thread? Do you need a hug?
New Blue
07-12-07, 10:32 AM
I'm just big boned !!!! :)
A lot of fat cunts become fat when they give up smoking....
IF THE FAT CUNTS WANT TO EAT TOO MUCH AND DIE SOONER THAN THEY WOULD IF THEY HAD A HEALTHY DIET AND TOOK EXCERCISE, THEN SO FUCKIN WHAT LET 'EM DIE!:reading:
Are you a twat all the time or do you have to try extra hard just for us? You are talking about a complex problem that you obviously know fuck all about so wind your neck in and get a life!
there gonna start having a go at good wholesome boozeahol soon.
strictlybroadband
07-12-07, 11:36 AM
Its the fuckin nanny state again, do this, don't do, that lets tax this, blah blah blah.
If these fat cunts want to walk past the fruit and veg in the super market and fill their trolleys with crisp,bisquits and chocolate why should they be penalised for their food choices.It is about our right to choose being eroded.:reading:
Yeah, but my tax money goes to the NHS to treat people who don't know that a tube of Pringles a day, washed down with a gallon of Coke, isn't good for them. I'd rather they pay for it.
New Blue
07-12-07, 11:46 AM
A tube of Pringles a day, washed down with a gallon of Coke, isn't good for you ?????
Well I've learnt something new today. :)
Now where's that gallon of Lemonade?
Blue
Yeah, but my tax money goes to the NHS to treat people who don't know that a tube of Pringles a day, washed down with a gallon of Coke, isn't good for them. I'd rather they pay for it.
Yeah - but one day when they scrape you up off the road after been knocked off yr bike by an xcitemobile - we'll have to pay to put you back together... would you rather we didnt???
strictlybroadband
07-12-07, 12:25 PM
Yeah - but one day when they scrape you up off the road after been knocked off yr bike by an xcitemobile - we'll have to pay to put you back together... would you rather we didnt???
Course not... the point is that the NHS should be free to all. But the government should tax unhealthy lifestyles to avoid the NHS getting crippled. They already tax cigs and booze, why not sugar and fat? And cocaine?
Course not... the point is that the NHS should be free to all. But the government should tax unhealthy lifestyles to avoid the NHS getting crippled. They already tax cigs and booze, why not sugar and fat? And cocaine?
OK then a £2k tax on bicycles, a £10k tax on middle aged tossers buying motor bikes, £5k a year tax on everyone who lives in london, -£5k tax for us healthy people who dont live in London - the problem with what your proposing is where do you draw the line??
strictlybroadband
07-12-07, 12:50 PM
OK then a £2k tax on bicycles, a £10k tax on middle aged tossers buying motor bikes, £5k a year tax on everyone who lives in london, -£5k tax for us healthy people who dont live in London - the problem with what your proposing is where do you draw the line??
You draw the line somewhere sensible. If a particular health issue is costing the NHS billions, you do something about it. If it's minor, it's not worth the admin cost. Clearly fags, booze and obesity are the big costs today... and obviously Xcite's SUV should be taxed a couple of grand a year just for the hell of it.
(EDIT - make that a couple of grand a month).
BTW cycling is reported to save the NHS money - the fitness improvement outweighs the risk of getting smeared by a juggernaut. So there. :P
Clearly fags, booze and obesity are the big costs today.Fags aren't. All the stats show that smokers contribute more than they cost through all the duty they pay during their short wheezey lifetimes, they then go and die young, so don't collect pensions.
RIP Joe A
wankmaster
07-12-07, 01:30 PM
I don't understand the benefit to the government of people living longer.
The optimum is for them to work upto pension age, then drop dead. People on benefits should drop dead asap.
Benny_MN
07-12-07, 02:16 PM
Dont think its such a bad thing. But DVT's proabably right, low quality fatty foods are cheap and people on lower incomes tend to eat them while the middle classes eat organic rocket salad from wooden bowls.
I reckon massive people should pay more to go on planes
Getting charged for being 5kg over my weight allowance when I weigh 10.5 stone, while the 22 stone burger muncher behind me is getting charged nothing is madness.
Are you a twat all the time or do you have to try extra hard just for us? You are talking about a complex problem that you obviously know fuck all about so wind your neck in and get a life!
I was up until 2 years ago a right fat cunt 5'10" and 14st 8lbs.
change my diet and went to the gym.Now Iam 11st 8lb and healthier.
If I want to be a twat I will be and I don't try that hard for you lot.
Iam having a laugh.
The problem with overweight people is that they need help but should it be at our expense, it seems so.Why as a healtht person should I pay more for the occasional goodie?
But the Gov are imposing more restrictions on us day by day by whatever means they can.
If they want to stop large people buying junk food close McDonalds and kebab houses or put weight restricted access to the "goodies" sections in the super markets.:reading:
daveydude
07-12-07, 02:56 PM
But the Gov are imposing more restrictions on us day by day by whatever means they can.
If they want to stop large people buying junk food close McDonalds and kebab houses or put weight restricted access to the "goodies" sections in the super markets.:reading:
Not wishing to repeat my previous post, but the government aren't doing anything in regards to a "fat tax". There really is nothing to moan about here - some scientist thinks a fat tax would be a good idea and did some sums then published his work in a dull medical journal. Big deal.
Stop getting your knickers in a twist over a meaningless tabloid space-filler article! Even Tony fucking Blair thought it was a shit idea!
Stop getting your knickers in a twist over a meaningless tabloid space-filler article! Even Tony fucking Blair thought it was a shit idea!
Agreed - BUT the problem with these types of shit articles is the provide a rallying point for people who have an interest in whats published..... Plus you say Blair thought it to be a shit idea... but the civil servants in our health service didnt... so now in certain areas of the UK you see criteria being set before they will provide treatment to some people..... Smoking obviously, but drinking and weight are also now used....... So we dont have a fat tax persay but we now have fat being used as a criteria of whether you get treatment or not in certain circumstances....
strictlybroadband
07-12-07, 03:18 PM
Agreed - BUT the problem with these types of shit articles is the provide a rallying point for people who have an interest in whats published..... Plus you say Blair thought it to be a shit idea... but the civil servants in our health service didnt... so now in certain areas of the UK you see criteria being set before they will provide treatment to some people..... Smoking obviously, but drinking and weight are also now used....... So we dont have a fat tax persay but we now have fat being used as a criteria of whether you get treatment or not in certain circumstances....
This tax would be preferable - it would "punish" an unhealthy lifestyle rather than being obese. And hopefully rein in the corporations who are pushing fat and sugar like drug dealers push crack.
What a day first the fat tax then the Tintin debacle..........what next?:P
wankmaster
07-12-07, 04:06 PM
Not wishing to repeat my previous post, but the government aren't doing anything in regards to a "fat tax". There really is nothing to moan about here - some scientist thinks a fat tax would be a good idea and did some sums then published his work in a dull medical journal. Big deal.
Shades of global warming and "green taxes" here methinks.
strictlybroadband
07-12-07, 05:36 PM
Shades of global warming and "green taxes" here methinks.
You've got a one-track mind. While we're on the subject though... did you hear that the "solar cycles" theory of global warming has just been debunked? You'd better find a new one. http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1118041432
Here's a new conspiracy theory for you: fat people are using up all the gravity. It's true I tell ya, but it's being suppressed by the balloon industry.
wankmaster
07-12-07, 06:03 PM
You've got a one-track mind. While we're on the subject though... did you hear that the "solar cycles" theory of global warming has just been debunked? You'd better find a new one. http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1118041432
Yes, I read the paper ( not just the joyful media reaction ). The introduction to the paper said that the findings were tentative, tho you'd never guess that from all the cries of "proof" and "debunked".
Cosmic Rays and GlobalWarming
T. SLOAN 1, A.W.WOLFENDALE
Physics Department, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK
Physics Department, Durham University, Durham, UK"
"Abstract: It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with
‘the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic
rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great.
We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and
so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the
small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less
than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming
over the last 35 years is due to this cause."
-----------------------------
It will be interesting to see the reaction from the Danish National Space Center, they may well have some rebuttal evidence. ( This is actually how science works ).
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/other/global-warming-and-cosmic-radiation
BritBomb
07-12-07, 07:07 PM
As a smoker I feel compelled to say "I told you so." Even though it wasn't you I was telling.
Perhaps others have touched on this (I attempted to read all the replies in detail but may have missed something).
The govt. has convinced everyone that smokers are a 'drag' on the public purse, the nation's health and the environment. It worked (even though it's patently a load of cods) and now they have demonised us sufficiently they have leave to tax us even more without really giving a damn about any of the issues lobbied on.
Now it's fat folk.
"When they came for the Jews I said nothing, for I was not a Jew..." etc.
Laugh today - cry tomorrow.
daveydude
07-13-07, 11:07 AM
Now it's fat folk.
No, it isn't.
Now it's fat folk.
Yes it is
[QUOTE=BritBomb]
Now it's fat folk.
QUOTE]
Probably is or maybe it isn't!
BritBomb
07-13-07, 05:15 PM
I'm not fattist - I'm an anarchist!
I'm not fattist - I'm an anarchist!
Iam not fatt'ish either or an antichrist.....:P
BritBomb
07-14-07, 12:05 AM
Iam not fatt'ish either or an antichrist.....:P
Damn, foiled already!
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4091/iconcool5lw.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.