# Hands off our biccies! Ministers want to slash size of biscuits and cakes



## Northerner (May 7, 2013)

Leaked plans to reduce the size of cakes and biscuits to tackle Britain's growing waistlines have been branded 'ludicrous' by common sense campaigners.
Ministers wants the portion sizes of fatty and sugar-laden foods to be cut in a bid to halt the growing obesity problem.
The changes, which could be implemented as early as July, are part of the Government's 'Responsibility Deal', where food manufacturers are encouraged to take a pledge to reduce unhealthy ingredients, educate consumers on healthy eating and reduce portion sizes, reports the Daily Express.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...scuits-cakes-tackle-UKs-obesity-epidemic.html


----------



## Vicsetter (May 7, 2013)

A) you read too much dailymail Alan.
B) this will be grasped by the manufacturers as a way to reduce sizes and leave the price the same.


----------



## DeusXM (May 7, 2013)

I actually think this kind of social paternalism is a good idea.

The problem this country (and many others) has is that obesity and overeating are normalised. 

It should be monumentally obvious to anyone that if you order a 'large' meal in a fast food place, you wil by definition become 'large' as well, yet I have never, ever heard anyone order a small fries and Coke in McDonalds.

The point is most people accept the portion size that is given to them without really thinking about it. If you give me a 50g pack of crisps, I'll eat the whole pack. Give me a 35g pack, I'll eat the lot as well but I won't actually feel like I've missed out on a further 15g.

Give people smaller portions and they will eat less. We all know the US has one of the highest obesity rates in the world, and when you go there it becomes extremely clear why - the portion sizes, on average, are probably about 30% larger than we are used to in the UK. And the majority of people probably don't stop eating when they feel full. Most people stop eating when the food is gone. That's because we're hard-wired to do that from a survival standpoint. Being overweight is normal in Britain. After a month in Thailand (where generally, the population is much thinner and shorter than that in the UK), when I came back and walked around Asda, I felt like I'd walked into the elephant house. Yet after a month of being back, suddenly the exact same people didn't seem fat anymore. If you are surrounded by people who are consistently overweight, your perception of 'overweight' changes dramatically. We need to denormalise having a belly if people are to really make a change.

I agree, the manufacturers probably keep the prices the same while making the portions smaller. Why's that a bad thing? If it costs more to eat to excess, less people are likely to do it.

As long as we have a state-funded NHS, I think the state is perfectly within its rights to direct behaviour to support our health. That's the deal we make. The government pays for our healthcare, so we should have to accept that means the government will also influence our lifestyle to bring those costs down. Those people who are incapable of making smarter dietary choices because either they don't know how to or don't want to, need to be pushed in the right direction.


----------



## Northerner (May 7, 2013)

DeusXM said:


> ...I agree, the manufacturers probably keep the prices the same while making the portions smaller. Why's that a bad thing? If it costs more to eat to excess, less people are likely to do it....



Manufacturers have been doing this for years! This sounds like a backdoor biscuit/sweet tax, but with the money going to private enterprise rather than the government


----------



## FM001 (May 7, 2013)

Vicsetter said:


> this will be grasped by the manufacturers as a way to reduce sizes and leave the price the same.




Been doing this for years, the choc bars today compared to what we ate as kids are half the size, just take a look at wagon wheels or a mars bar.


----------



## Northerner (May 7, 2013)

toby said:


> Been doing this for years, the choc bars today compared to what we ate as kids are half the size, just take a look at wagon wheels or a mars bar.



Or a curly wurly!


----------



## DeusXM (May 7, 2013)

> This sounds like a backdoor biscuit/sweet tax, but with the money going to private enterprise rather than the government



The problem is, this is the only way the Government can sell the idea of eating less rubbish to the British people.

The obvious point would be to shove a tax on these things like we do with booze and fags and use the cash to help prop up the NHS.

The problem is you'll get the usual core of armchair colonels whinging about how they're already having to pay plenty of tax and how dare the Government even think about putting it on chocolate digestives. Then you'll get the business lobby essentially kyboshing all this anyway because they'll pump out a campaign about the Government punishing hard-working families from having the odd treat and that they're interfering with business, and there's probably a scientific study they can pull out from somewhere to make it sound like biscuits are good for you. Then the manufacturers basically get weeks of free PR and advertising and nothing actually changes.

In those circumstances, far better to simply pay off the businesses by giving them a bit of free cash. It's just pragmatism, because as we all know, people get a bit cantankerous if they feel their personal dietary choices are being criticised.


----------



## Northerner (May 7, 2013)

DeusXM said:


> The problem is, this is the only way the Government can sell the idea of eating less rubbish to the British people.
> ..



They gave up on trying to do it with booze though, so I can't see manipulating the price of food is going to ever get anywhere.


----------



## FM001 (May 7, 2013)

Northerner said:


> Or a curly wurly!




They are titchy. 

Say by reducing the size of a biscuit whats that going to achieve, they are sold in multipacks and there's nothing stopping you from having another, how is that going to be policed


----------



## DeusXM (May 7, 2013)

> Say by reducing the size of a biscuit whats that going to achieve, they are sold in multipacks and there's nothing stopping you from having another, how is that going to be policed



Well, as I said, people tend to accept the portion that's given to them. If people usually have one biscuit with their tea, if you give them a slightly smaller biscuit, they're probably unlikely to bother having two. 

Besides, even if they do eat more than one, if we accept the manufacturers are going to keep the price the same but make the portion smaller, then cumulatively it'll cost that person more in the long run - instead of buying a pack a week, they'll be buying two. That'll add up, so they're likely to end up cutting down on their biscuit consumption - exactly what this idea is supposed to achieve.


----------



## FM001 (May 7, 2013)

> Besides, even if they do eat more than one, if we accept the manufacturers are going to keep the price the same but make the portion smaller, then cumulatively it'll cost that person more in the long run - instead of buying a pack a week, they'll be buying two. That'll add up, so they're likely to end up cutting down on their biscuit consumption - exactly what this idea is supposed to achieve.




In some shops you can buy 5 packs of biscuits for a quid, this will hardly make dent in anyone's pocket and won't deter folk from having that second biscuit


----------



## DeusXM (May 8, 2013)

Then what would you suggest would be the best way of nudging behaviour so people eat less?


----------



## FergusC (May 8, 2013)

DeusXM said:


> The obvious point would be to shove a tax on these things like we do with booze and fags and use the cash to help prop up the NHS.
> 
> The problem is you'll get the usual core of armchair colonels whinging about how they're already having to pay plenty of tax and how dare the Government even think about putting it on chocolate digestives.



No, the problem is the acquisitive  nature government has re taxes. 
It would likely be the same as what happened with the old Road Fund Licence, it would be de-"ring-fenced" from its original purpose and syphoned off to general funds


----------



## DeusXM (May 8, 2013)

I don't see that being a problem though - if tax on cigarettes, for instance, ends up being diverted to fund the police or whatever rather than direct to the NHS, that means a smaller tax burden for me in the long run.


----------



## FM001 (May 8, 2013)

> Then what would you suggest would be the best way of nudging behaviour so people eat less?





Don't have any suggestions, the point I'm making is reducing the size of a product that is cheap to produce is going to do little to stop people eating junk, the only winners there will be big business.

Take cigarette smoking, somewhere near 10 million adults still smoke in the UK, do you think if the government banned the sale of packs of 20 cigs and only 10 were sold this would make people smoke less?


----------



## rachelha (May 8, 2013)

DeusXM said:


> Besides, even if they do eat more than one, if we accept the manufacturers are going to keep the price the same but make the portion smaller, then cumulatively it'll cost that person more in the long run - instead of buying a pack a week, they'll be buying two. That'll add up, so they're likely to end up cutting down on their biscuit consumption - exactly what this idea is supposed to achieve.



Or they will keep up the biscuit consumption and cut back on eating healthy food which can be more expensive.


----------



## Redkite (May 8, 2013)

DeusXM said:


> Then what would you suggest would be the best way of nudging behaviour so people eat less?



Bring back rationing!

It's not just biscuits, cakes and choccies.  Most people seem to think that milk shakes, smoothies, juices and cereal bars are "healthy" and can be eaten in unlimited quantities.


----------



## Copepod (May 9, 2013)

Redkite said:


> Bring back rationing!
> 
> It's not just biscuits, cakes and choccies.  Most people seem to think that milk shakes, smoothies, juices and cereal bars are "healthy" and can be eaten in unlimited quantities.



Can just imagine a black market in milk shakes etc - in contrast to eggs, meat, alcohol etc during and after WWII. 
Foraged foods are always good - blackberries taste good and picking gets you outdoors and walking / cycling to suitable bramble bushes, plus rabbits are very tasty, although I can't exactly forage them, but my boss sometimes gives me a rabbit shot as vermin.


----------

