Is the NHS useless?

[onewheeldave]

 

Which is it? Are they not effective as you claim, or are they effective as the evidence shows?

 

I'm distinguishing between bans and campaigns. Bans are not campaigns. I consider, for diet/nutrition, that bans could well be very effective (as they were for smoking), but that the campaigns aren't very effective.

 

You're right though, that, with smoking, in addition to the advertising ban, banning it in public spaces also helped a lot. The scare campaigns, IMO, didn't.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting banning eating unhealthy food in public . I just want the adverts banned. I don't want our children being tricked by marketing into eating food that is proven to cause heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 11:13 ----------

 

Short of banning sweets, pizzas, burgers, sausages etc which is a ridiculous idea what else can we do?

 

But banning advertising and promotion of health destroying 'foods' isn't at all ridiculous. It's totally feasable. Why are we marketing products to adults and children that we know will lead to serious ill-health?

[SnailyBoy]

I'm distinguishing between bans and campaigns. Bans are not campaigns. I consider, for diet/nutrition, that bans could well be very effective (as they were for smoking), but that the campaigns aren't very effective.

 

You're right though, that, with smoking, in addition to the advertising ban, banning it in public spaces also helped a lot. The scare campaigns, IMO, didn't.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting banning eating unhealthy food in public . I just want the adverts banned. I don't want our children being tricked by marketing into eating food that is proven to cause heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

 

Can you run through the process for me where a child gets 'tricked' by marketing and therefore effect their diet?

[onewheeldave]

 

What's this though? Drs constantly telling people not to over eat, not to consume so much sugar, the government considering a sugar tax, etc, etc...

 

What they can't do, is somehow stop you from eating cake and sitting on the sofa all evening. They're not the boss of you.

These changes need to be made early, not late, and GPs DO tell people to exercise more and eat more healthy food. They are then ignored.

 

in 1939 Dr. Walter Kempner aquired a reputation for curing hypertension, back when it was often fatal (pre blood pressure drugs). A side effect of his diet based treatment was that patients also ceased to be obese, and many type II diabetics had their diabetes reveresed, or, required considerable less insulin.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_diet

 

I mention it, as his diet consisted of rice, fruit and sugar.

 

The evidence against sugar is not of the scale of evidence against, say, meat/dairy/animal produce.

 

It may be that sugar is harmless (other than it being 'empty calories' i.e. having no other nutrients).

[unbeliever]

I'm not a huge fan of banning things.

The taxes etc on tobacco are now so high that smokers pay for their own additional health costs through extra taxes.

 

How about an arrangement where unhealthy foods are taxed and the revenue used to subsidise healthy food. Subsidising healthy food in supermarkets might be troublesome practically, but one could start with food served/available in schools. It might also be helpful to restrict sales of unhealthy foods to over 18s as we do with tobacco, alcohol etc.

[onewheeldave]

Can you run through the process for me where a child gets 'tricked' by marketing and therefore effect their diet?

 

No. I don't expect to be teaching intelligent adults how marketing and advertising is effective. If you really don't have a concept of how marketing/advertising change human behaviour, then I can't help you.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 11:29 ----------

 

I'm not a huge fan of banning things.

The taxes etc on tobacco are now so high that smokers pay for their own additional health costs through extra taxes.

 

How about an arrangement where unhealthy foods are taxed and the revenue used to subsidise healthy food. Subsidising healthy food in supermarkets might be troublesome practically, but one could start with food served/available in schools. It might also be helpful to restrict sales of unhealthy foods to over 18s as we do with tobacco, alcohol etc.

 

In contrast, I'm a huge fan of banning the marketing of toxic substances to adults or children. Seeing how successfull it was with smoking has made me a firm convert.

 

I'm happy for other things to be done as well, but, in the absence of some action in getting the marketing of toxic 'food' ended, it's clearly not being taken seriously enough.

 

Bans on advertising tobacco products clearly worked very well. Why are we still allowing the promotion of 'foods' our medical system has proved to be extremely damaging to health?

Edited November 3, 2015 by onewheeldave

[SnailyBoy]

No. I don't expect to be teaching intelligent adults how marketing and advertising is effective. If you really don't have a concept of how marketing/advertising change human behaviour, then I can't help you.

 

You were talking about 'tricking' a child. How does a child seeing an advert for a burger for example, get 'tricked' into buying and eating the burger?

[Cyclone]

I'm distinguishing between bans and campaigns. Bans are not campaigns.

They are a preventative measure to improve public health, enacted due to medical advice.

You're trying to split hairs in order for your assertion to be correct, but it isn't.

I consider, for diet/nutrition, that bans could well be very effective (as they were for smoking), but that the campaigns aren't very effective.

You can't ban eating badly. You can ban advertising. Advertising is already restricted, and personally I doubt that a ban on advertising for food will have a large effect.

 

You're right though, that, with smoking, in addition to the advertising ban, banning it in public spaces also helped a lot. The scare campaigns, IMO, didn't.

Your opinion isn't evidence, in my opinion.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting banning eating unhealthy food in public . I just want the adverts banned. I don't want our children being tricked by marketing into eating food that is proven to cause heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

Advertising of food to children is already tightly regulated.

And when did you last see an advert on TV for a burger or a takeaway?

 

But banning advertising and promotion of health destroying 'foods' isn't at all ridiculous. It's totally feasable. Why are we marketing products to adults and children that we know will lead to serious ill-health?

'We'? Do you mean why do 'we' (society) allow it? Well, we don't with regards to children, as I already said. And adults we recognise should be given personal freedom to make decisions.

Personally I don't remember the last time I saw a food advert on the TV... Ah, maybe that's not true. I've seen adverts for places that sell food, rather than specific foods. So, M&S, Tesco, Asda, they all advertise. But they don't try and convince you to buy bad food, they just want you to come to their store.

[Obelix]

No. I don't expect to be teaching intelligent adults how marketing and advertising is effective. If you really don't have a concept of how marketing/advertising change human behaviour, then I can't help you.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2015 at 11:29 ----------

 

 

In contrast, I'm a huge fan of banning the marketing of toxic substances to adults or children. Seeing how successfull it was with smoking has made me a firm convert.

 

I'm happy for other things to be done as well, but, in the absence of some action in getting the marketing of toxic 'food' ended, it's clearly not being taken seriously enough.

 

Bans on advertising tobacco products clearly worked very well. Why are we still allowing the promotion of 'foods' our medical system has proved to be extremely damaging to health?

 

What's "toxic" then? You do seem to like to bandy about weasel words that are emotively charged but they are never clarified or indeed any evidence asserted at all.

[Berberis]

The NHS is probably the best company in the world. Its so large occasionally things go wrong, but its never the intention of the organisation to do anything other then help millions of people every year for free to you and I.

[unbeliever]

The NHS is probably the best company in the world. Its so large occasionally things go wrong, but its never the intention of the organisation to do anything other then help millions of people every year for free to you and I.

 

IT'S NOT FREE.

They get thousands per year out of me and almost everybody else working full time with any kind of advanced training.

It's just a compulsory insurance scheme in which the better off subsidies the very poor. Both in the form of extra contributions and charges from which the poor are exempt.