|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 15, 2023 10:10:33 GMT
Can you explain to us how you can be 'conned' in to buying a burger?
What are business doing to con people in to buying fast food 'junk' food, you are talking utter nonsense.
Buy this burger it will bring you good luck, Buy this burger it will make you more attractive to the opposite sex...
How the feck can you be conned in to buying fast food FFS.
Misrepresentative advertising. Advertising low quality foods and selling cheap bundles of it. I have not seen that sort of advertising but I am sure it would be banned if they tried it. Celebrity advertising. I think I am safe in saying that I do not know one person who reads the ingredients for fast food items before they order it.
Advertising food is like advertising any other product, if that were the case they wouldn't allow these 'miracle creams' to be advertised, do wrinkled old women honestly look at a advert for L'Oreal anti-wrinkle creams, put it on then expect to look like Taylor Swift, if they don't look like her in 6 weeks they'd be suing L'Oreal left right, and center.
and that is 'celebrity advertising'.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 15, 2023 11:21:54 GMT
I have a proposal.. Everyone on Job seeker's allowance should have to turn up for physical exercise every day at 7am. They will also be issued with personalised food vouchers that can be only exchanged by them for non-junk food. Along with every MP. Then I could support the motion. Maybe every motion should be analysed to ascertain they were not consuming junk food… |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 15, 2023 11:28:30 GMT
These are "Interventionist Taxes" that people do not have to pay, which is why they are a good idea, as opposed to taxes that people cannot avoid. It is now over five years since the Sugar Tax was introduced on fizzy drinks with a high sugar content, no mass protests, no manufacturers in revolt, and no political effects. Most manufacturers did not stop producing products, but instead reduced the sugar content to below the Sugar Tax threshold. Such products included Barrs Iron Brew - Robinsons - Britvic - Fruit Shoot - Ribena and Lucozade SUCCESS .... A policy recommended to a Tory government by the medical world, and it has worked So now, bring on similar policies for high fat content, and if the example of the Sugar Tax is anything to go by, it will cause producers and manufacturers to act and reduce fat and salt. yeah. Drop the sugar content and replace it with liver killing artificial sweetners. Bloody brilliant idea that Even then, there’s little any authority can do to ensure addictive personalities don’t massively overdose… |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 11:30:12 GMT
Misrepresentative advertising. Advertising low quality foods and selling cheap bundles of it. I have not seen that sort of advertising but I am sure it would be banned if they tried it. Celebrity advertising. I think I am safe in saying that I do not know one person who reads the ingredients for fast food items before they order it.
Advertising food is like advertising any other product, if that were the case they wouldn't allow these 'miracle creams' to be advertised, do wrinkled old women honestly look at a advert for L'Oreal anti-wrinkle creams, put it on then expect to look like Taylor Swift, if they don't look like her in 6 weeks they'd be suing L'Oreal left right, and center.
and that is 'celebrity advertising'.
I agree that is why it is a con. Putting creams on your face is highly regulated. Putting cream on your face hardly compares to the 'damaging' ingredients you will be ingesting in 'junk' food. If junk food was as highly regulated as face creams they would all but disappear, (pun intended). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 11:31:13 GMT
"You should really be asking your parents why you believed junk food is the healthy option". Idiotic, nonsensical comment. So you don't believe in good food policies. Do you think heroin should be legal as well? I have nothing more to add. Your creepy dishonesty does nothing to address my post. Bad parenting is a problem but that's a different topic. You started with the parent thing. You had nothing to start with. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 15, 2023 11:36:03 GMT
I think I am safe in saying that I do not know one person who reads the ingredients for fast food items before they order it.
Advertising food is like advertising any other product, if that were the case they wouldn't allow these 'miracle creams' to be advertised, do wrinkled old women honestly look at a advert for L'Oreal anti-wrinkle creams, put it on then expect to look like Taylor Swift, if they don't look like her in 6 weeks they'd be suing L'Oreal left right, and center.
and that is 'celebrity advertising'.
I agree that is why it is a con. Putting creams on your face is highly regulated. Putting cream on your face hardly compares to the 'damaging' ingredients you will be ingesting in 'junk' food. If junk food was as highly regulated as face creams they would all but disappear, (pun intended). Is that so?
Researchers have found dangerous levels of mercury in skin lightening and anti-aging creams; they've linked chemicals in hair dyes and straighteners to breast and uterine cancer; they've traced fragrances in soaps and shampoos to poor semen quality and fertility issues.
What chemicals should be avoided in face cream?
From common allergens to potential carcinogens, here are the ingredients Blyumin-Karasik and Greenfield suggest avoiding:
PEGs (polyethylene glycols)
methyl and propyl parabens.
aluminum.
formaldehyde.
phthalates.
oxybenozone.
Your face cream is more deadly than a greasy fry up greasy Bills cafe.
Here is the list of the most common side effects of cosmetics that you may use regularly.
Lung Cancer. Chemicals present in cosmetics, if inhaled, can damage lung tissues. ...
Skin Cancer. Excessive cosmetic use can lead to skin cancer. ...
Permanent Dark Circles. .. Clogging of Pores. ...
Aging of Your Skin. ...
Lead Poisoning. ...
Skin Allergies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 11:44:02 GMT
I agree that is why it is a con. Putting creams on your face is highly regulated. Putting cream on your face hardly compares to the 'damaging' ingredients you will be ingesting in 'junk' food. If junk food was as highly regulated as face creams they would all but disappear, (pun intended). Is that so?
Researchers have found dangerous levels of mercury in skin lightening and anti-aging creams; they've linked chemicals in hair dyes and straighteners to breast and uterine cancer; they've traced fragrances in soaps and shampoos to poor semen quality and fertility issues.
What chemicals should be avoided in face cream?
From common allergens to potential carcinogens, here are the ingredients Blyumin-Karasik and Greenfield suggest avoiding:
PEGs (polyethylene glycols)
methyl and propyl parabens.
aluminum.
formaldehyde.
phthalates.
oxybenozone.
Your face cream is more deadly than a greasy fry up greasy Bills cafe.
Here is the list of the most common side effects of cosmetics that you may use regularly.
Lung Cancer. Chemicals present in cosmetics, if inhaled, can damage lung tissues. ...
Skin Cancer. Excessive cosmetic use can lead to skin cancer. ...
Permanent Dark Circles. .. Clogging of Pores. ...
Aging of Your Skin. ...
Lead Poisoning. ...
Skin Allergies.
Thanks for that, you have just proved my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 15, 2023 11:45:46 GMT
Where have I ever supported sugar taxes?
Abolish.
Cut taxes on booze as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 11:46:03 GMT
I think I am safe in saying that I do not know one person who reads the ingredients for fast food items before they order it.
Advertising food is like advertising any other product, if that were the case they wouldn't allow these 'miracle creams' to be advertised, do wrinkled old women honestly look at a advert for L'Oreal anti-wrinkle creams, put it on then expect to look like Taylor Swift, if they don't look like her in 6 weeks they'd be suing L'Oreal left right, and center.
and that is 'celebrity advertising'.
I agree that is why it is a con. Putting creams on your face is highly regulated. Putting cream on your face hardly compares to the 'damaging' ingredients you will be ingesting in 'junk' food. If junk food was as highly regulated as face creams they would all but disappear, (pun intended). The regulation seems very odd There is no real reason why the calorific content can't be stated for the contents of the packet, rather than exclusively by some fraction of it. In many cases this allows for a far simpler evaluation by the customer. People don't typically drink (for instance) 100 ml of milkshake out of 500 ml bottle. Shouldn't there also be a minimum font size standard? What's the point of the information being encoded on a microdot? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 11:46:23 GMT
Food and drink licensing and regulation is widespread, it ranges from food production, the licensing of alcohol, safety standards, health and hygiene, labeling, who can buy alcohol and who can buy medicines. The list of regulation goes on and on.
But all for very good reason - for our own good, for our health, our well being, the safety of the public and to protect us from harm.
So WHY is a tax on something that is actually bad for us, and something which is a major contribution to obesity, diabetes and heart disease wrong. ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 15, 2023 11:54:08 GMT
I've just asked my OH what ingredients are in her facial make-up, she's just told me to bugger off and get a life FFS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 15, 2023 11:56:11 GMT
Food and drink licensing and regulation is widespread, it ranges from food production, the licensing of alcohol, safety standards, health and hygiene, labeling, who can buy alcohol and who can buy medicines. The list of regulation goes on and on. But all for very good reason - for our own good, for our health, our well being, the safety of the public and to protect us from harm. So WHY is a tax on something that is actually bad for us, and something which is a major contribution to obesity, diabetes and heart disease wrong. ? No, it isn't. Health warnings are for our health. Taxes are for government wealth.
If you are genuinely concerned about the effects of alcohol and health put health warning labels on bottles and cans.
If you are genuinely concerned about obesity put warnings on junk food.
BUT let adults be adults and make our own minds up when we have information to hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 12:02:55 GMT
Food and drink licensing and regulation is widespread, it ranges from food production, the licensing of alcohol, safety standards, health and hygiene, labeling, who can buy alcohol and who can buy medicines. The list of regulation goes on and on. But all for very good reason - for our own good, for our health, our well being, the safety of the public and to protect us from harm. So WHY is a tax on something that is actually bad for us, and something which is a major contribution to obesity, diabetes and heart disease wrong. ? No, it isn't. Health warnings are for our health. Taxes are for government wealth.
If you are genuinely concerned about the effects of alcohol and health put health warning labels on bottles and cans.
If you are genuinely concerned about obesity put warnings on junk food.
BUT let adults be adults and make our own minds up when we have information to hand.
If we follow your thinking, we would then reduce Duty on tobacco and alcohol, leave the warning labels and then let the public decide for themselves. With the price of a pack of Cigarettes going down by 80%, what do you think would happen ? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 15, 2023 12:27:52 GMT
Food and drink licensing and regulation is widespread, it ranges from food production, the licensing of alcohol, safety standards, health and hygiene, labeling, who can buy alcohol and who can buy medicines. The list of regulation goes on and on. But all for very good reason - for our own good, for our health, our well being, the safety of the public and to protect us from harm. So WHY is a tax on something that is actually bad for us, and something which is a major contribution to obesity, diabetes and heart disease wrong. ? No, it isn't. Health warnings are for our health. Taxes are for government wealth.
If you are genuinely concerned about the effects of alcohol and health put health warning labels on bottles and cans.
If you are genuinely concerned about obesity put warnings on junk food.
BUT let adults be adults and make our own minds up when we have information to hand.
Great idea — provided other taxpayers can opt out of funding treatment caused by self harm. Until then, I'm content for us all to be nudged toward less harmful lifestyles by being taxed extra for stuff that damages us and our environment... |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 12:51:15 GMT
No, it isn't. Health warnings are for our health. Taxes are for government wealth.
If you are genuinely concerned about the effects of alcohol and health put health warning labels on bottles and cans.
If you are genuinely concerned about obesity put warnings on junk food.
BUT let adults be adults and make our own minds up when we have information to hand.
Great idea — provided other taxpayers can opt out of funding treatment caused by self harm. You could take this principle further and allow people to opt out of paying for health services entirely. |
|
