Restaurants and work canteens will put calorie counts on menus and food manufacturers will promise to cut down on salt and artificial fats under a set of agreements to be announced today.DK has quite rightly objected to the further employment - by the administration which promised repeals and freedoms, no less - of Labour's trusted tool, the compulsory order disguised as a 'voluntary' agreement.
The three voluntary “responsibility deals” agreed with the food industry are aimed at helping the public to eat more healthily, in a drive to tackle the growing problem of obesity among both adults and children.
But while Lansley's chosen devious process can accurately be condemned as illiberal, the basis for such proposals can only be termed as ill-informed and crashingly idiotic. Perhaps Lansley should spend more time on a Saturday reading my Link Tank articles as he might have spotted this from January, if so.
Ariely cites studies conducted in New York City after the city passed legislation forcing fast-food restaurants to post caloric information for consumers to see. The studies looked at the effect the information had on fast-food consumption.Yep, that's right. No effect whatsoever. In fact, in certain cases it led to more calories being consumed.
"They saw no effect," he says. "In one study, it actually went the other way around. People said, 'Hey, only 800 calories! Give me fries with that.' "
Ariely says Duke University also conducted a similar study. He says they posted caloric labels at "the Duke version of Panda Express," a fast-food version of Chinese food. And they saw "absolutely no difference" in caloric consumption.
And if Lansley had read a link I posted only yesterday, he would have been educated even further as to the moronic nature of his quite absurd pronouncements.
Researchers who studied menu choices at four fast-food restaurant chains before and after mandatory labeling took effect in New York City said the legislation did little to lower calorie consumption.So Lansley is proposing regulations which will inflict costs on businesses ... without any concrete evidence that they will have any beneficial effect.
"We didn't notice a change in calories purchased before and after labeling [went into effect]," said study leader Dr. Brian Elbel, assistant professor of medicine and health policy at the New York University School of Medicine and Wagner School of Public Service.
That's that brilliant set of minds in government for you, eh?
As for salt, the Devil has pointed out the ridiculous - and potentially dangerous - nature of Lansley's fuckwittery already.
Might I remind everyone that salt—in this case, sodium chloride—is absolutely essential for nerve function? If you do not get enough salt, you will die: if you eat rather more salt than you need then... Well, it does nothing much at all.Quite. And if Lansley enjoyed the benefit of half decent researchers (or if one just read the odd article here at Dick's pad), he would have been informed that the entire anti-salt industry is a huge conglomerate consisting of ... one very sad geezer with a longstanding fixation.
I looked into CASH a while ago and vaguely remembered that they received paltry income while paradoxically enjoying huge media interest. It also struck me that they were working out of someone's office in Tooting.A very well paid hobby too, it would seem, and one which is capable of hoodwinking offensively stupid cabinet ministers into the bargain.
That someone didn't concern me at the time ...Prof Graham MacGregor, of St George's Hospital, in Tooting, South-West London, welcomed the move but added: "Why do they need to put salt on the chips at all? Why not leave them as they are and let customers sprinkle on what they want?"Hmm, interesting.
But the BBC article says he is from the "Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine".
Funny enough, so now is the HQ of CASH.Principal address:So it would seem that this entire organisation consists of Graham MacGregor and, err, a couple of mates.
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine,
London ECIM 6BQ
Voluntary income is from tin-rattling sources such as the Food Standards Agency, Nissan, the Co-Op and OMC Investments. They did raise £717 themselves from selling old stuff, though, it has to be said.
CASH, and dictating the lives of others, is just Graham's little hobby.
Yet again we see evidence-free policy-making from those who puff their chests out and pose as state intellectuals, despite not appearing to possess any semblance of critical objectivity no matter how much of our stolen money they have at their disposal.
The Devil summed it up quite well with a very pertinent question.
Is anyone else ashamed at the fact that Lansley and his ilk claim to represent us?Don't all put your hands up at once.