I'm 51yrs old. $40,000 weekly and *I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways that I remember my past of how I struggled with many things in life to be where I am today!!!!* ❤️
Same here waking up every 14th of each month to 210,000 dollars it's a blessing to l and my family... I can now retire knowing that I have a steady income❤️Big gratitude to Maria Frances Hanlon
I think there´s a difference between a "nanny state" and providing decent services so people can prosper. In fact, one very cheap intervention that works in improving people´s health is canal restoration. It´s been shown that if you restore a derelict canal in an area, there tends to be an economic boost, people tend to exercise more, walking along the towpath and it makes the town look more attractive. And you get that for a really cheap investment. Also, the way PE is taught in many schools is frankly really outdated. It focusses on trying to get people into particular sports (even when you discover you´re useless, like I´m never going to be good at tennis), rather than trying to help people develop healthy exercise plans that they can stick to, and really developing that as a lifelong value. And frankly, we do need to teach people to cook better. Far too many people go to the chippy all the time instead of eating healthier alternatives, when the healthier alternative is cheaper. I think we do need to change our food culture somewhat in the UK.
I can't see governments intervening as they are possibly funded and lobbied by vested interests. We are encouraged to eat processed foods on all political sides. Certain billionaires have bought up farmland and have shares in fake meat which is highly processed.
Yes, and we need a push against extreme veganism, wich creates a market for fake meat. Vegans may think they are preventing animals from being killed when in effect they are ultimately preventing them from being born!
See now, I genuinely believe that people would eat however is best for them if they were regularly able to. More and more people live paycheck to paycheck. The unhealthiest options are often the cheapest for feeding you for longer.
@@elilallathin3283 people arguing for others to eat non processed foods should explain exactly how a nation can afford it, not to mention it would probably mean no food imports...on an individual basis wed need more money
Totalitarian state; Want your pittance? Look for a job or be sanctioned. Does poverty need a nanny state? As a child of the 80's we taste tested crisps as a lesson with a factory tour for a whole day, our future jobs🤔
Brilliant and timely 'food products' video Richard. Christmas is the ultra food manufacturers chance for the equivalent of a massive drugs orgy, to get the public hooked for yet another coming year on ultra processed foods and really is the sales pitch for those products. That's the products which costs the NHS the bulk of its budget each year.
Growing children need plenty of running about outside & good wholesome food. When I was growing up my mother didnt need to go out to work because it was possible to live on one wage. There was time to cook proper food & always a roast on Sundays. We would walk to & from school - 2 miles & spend all our time at home outdoors. There was only 1 overweight child in our class or even in our whole primary school & they were teased unmercifully. Nobody wanted to be fat. Then came Television...!
@@jackiecullum9657 UK kids are now on average 9 cm shorter than their EE peers when they start primary school. Big food hasn’t taken over less developed EE markets and their kids don’t eat as much UPF. There wasn’t any difference in height a few decades ago.
@@stevo728822 What freedom of choice do we have regarding our water supply? I don't like United Utilities so I'm going to stop using water. Think outside the box once in your life.
@@stevo728822 b.s if they make the cheap food then same way and you are poor what freedom is that. the rich have spent alot of money to make you think that.
You're much better off cutting all sugar out of your diet and eating as much fat as you like than the other way around. The advice is entirely upside down.
Except I want to enjoy what I eat, so I’ll continue to have a biscuit, or currently a mince pie, or a portion of rhubarb crumble (I’ve still got rhubarb in the freezer from the huge pile my neighbour gave me and my own rhubarb plant will be harvestable next year). I do use whole milk though and butter, though I spread my morning toast with tahini. Admittedly there was a fair amount of butter and cheese in the vegetable and walnut cobbler I made yesterday. I don’t really know what most people eat. I do know that the majority of products in supermarkets is stuff I’d never buy, and I’ve never understood why nearly everyone thinks those breakfast cereals are a healthy start to the day. I’ve always been a weirdo.
@@sososoprano1 All hail the world's weirdos! And let's not forget the delights of the sugared doughnut (with real, honest to goodness sugar): ban 'healthy' doughnuts.
@@sososoprano1I found out I had high cholesterol. I changed my diet completely , biscuits, chocolate ,red meat, diary etc food cooked in coconut milk,and went out the window. I go to the gym 6 days a week but had to re educate myself with regards to my diet.
Especially saturated fats. Ancel Keys has a lot to answer for. If the FDA and Public Health England have got it wrong for the past 40 years just double down on the advice. Should we leave things to 'the experts'? Milliband will force us to be vegetarians if he has his way. Nanny state no thanks.
@@paulnnaish Vested interests, for and against, are the problem with the 'nanny state'. The state needn't be a 'nanny' state if politicians did not allow their personal funding (of themselves or their pet projects) to be their primary motivator - they're not all corrupt but as is the case with most of us humans their thinking is easily corrupted. I'd rather live in a state that cared (but let me make my own mind up) than one that was only interested in future funding (decided by whichever vested interest could put more money on the table). Sure, it's all gotta be paid for and the current system seems to be easily sabotaged by ideology but I still want a state governed for the benefit of the majority of humans not for the benefit of bank accounts of the decision makers of large (especially financial) institutions. Ps: I have many pet hates re 'nanny' state thinking (the ban on lock knives, which I consider to be collective punishment, for one) but I think we all do.
Totally agree. It's not a nanny state if looks after the interests of its people - in my opinion. Lobbies often exist to promote their own interests ahead of the people and the planet and the sugar lobby has been no different. It seems quite evident whose interests are given priority.
@@scottyfive4319 yep but drinking enough water for it to be dangerous is basically impossible, but eating to much sugar for it to be bad for your health is incredibly easy.
There were very few obese people in the 1950s (even though much of the food was ultra-processed. People did far more physical and standing up jobs. A lot of people now sit down at a desk for 8+ hours a day. You can see people, women in particular, whose job is sitting down in an office .... that place the government wants you to go to, so that people support coffee shops and places selling UPF to office workers...
Ultra processed foods are good for the GDP, and GDP growth is driven by the need to grow revenues by taxes on wages goods and services. There is no VAT or Income Tax to be collected from preparing food from fresh ingredients at home. The state is the main problem. Land use, planning policies have forced us into cars.
Thank you for this video. I think it also links nicely about your recent one about farmers and the lack of money they earn from selling their products. I usually shop on line, but went to my local Sainsbury’s a few weeks ago and it was aisle after aisle of processed junk - I can’t call it food. Healthier food (meat, fish, fruit and vegetables) was in the minority (10% of surface area- a guess). This also is rather expensive in comparison and requires extra effort to prepare and cook. Government intervention is needed. The companies making Britain sick should be paying for their harm.
It does appear that the promotion of "low fat" vegitable oils processed foods are worse for us than the beef suet. dripping and lard with bread and cakes made from butter. The "low sugar" items with artificial sweetners seem have no , or negative effects. Although we also spend much longer inside rather than outside (building flats rather than terraced houses affecting how we move around and play) and do less physical work ( which in itself may have foreshortened quality of life for many people ), with lots of sitting around with computer screens and so on, some of the thinnest people in my area are the road sweepers, however so are some of the fattest , so make of that what you will
A good education is what the population needs for independent thinking not North Korea, and an environment to thrive. How far have we fallen away from the tree :( for people to be so deluded. We don't need 1984!!!
I believe a lot of those illnesses stem more from STRESS rather than sugar and its over consumption - the sugar consumption is an effect and not a cause. People across the world have been suffering through roller coaster economies, elitist government/ judicial systems, and a polluted world contingent upon greed … therefore, people are CONSTANTLY being bombarded with INSTABILITY - having no reprieve for rest and peace. Consequently, people consume cheap foods to deal with the always impending stress/doom.
Beware of anyone wanting to protect your freedom of choice. They invariably end up making sure that you "choose" something which benefits them and and not you.
"Beware of anyone wanting to protect your freedom of choice" Well political in the UK; when it came to freedom of choice, there's not much to choose from, the system is thus screwed together, that the choices offered are either Labour, or Tory.
Process foods are designed to be addictive and contain the killer seed oils. If we all went back to eating fresh fruit, veg and meat we'd all be a lot healthier. People cut out animal fats which our digestive system evolved to digest because the food industry had an idea to make money.
You fail to see the difference between the 'nanny state' and totalitarian regimes. No one wants to be told what to do every minute of every moment of our lives, but responsible governments should be getting involved in things that are bad or dangerous to us. Eg. dangerous cladding on buildings that are not fire proof and lead to the deaths of hundreds of people. Or are examples like that the nanny state to you?
We absolutely DO NOT need the nanny state - Government exists to carry out the will of the people, not to be used like so many pawns on a Chess Board !
As you can tell from my name, I am not a far right, yet I believe that the state's interference here is nanny state. As an adult, I should be free to make my dietary choices without the interference of the state
That's OK if you are also willing to pay for the health treatments, that your life choice brings with it. However, if other have to pay via a collective NHS, then than should also have a say in what you eat.
@@michaelmayo3127 I am actually currently on a weight loss program, which has enable me to lose a few stones. So your point doesn't apply to me. That stated, I stand by my statement that the State should not regulate the diet of her people.
You still want to access health services that are collectively insured? Then your freedom comes with a responsibility not to abuse it. Your choice has consequences. Choose wisely.
We have arrived at a place where the cost of living has risen to a point where most jobs barely support a single person. It leaves no time for a healthy lifestyle or staying at home to raise a family. These things are not valued. All that matters is an individual's input into the economy while the economy spews out convenient microwavable filth to consume in a 15 minute break. What is needed is a better work/life balance, food education and some pride in our food culture.
The state needs to remember that it is in a social contract with the People. If it falls too short on it's side of the contract, then it's political legitimacy will be called into question.
I must be a right-winger then. After my doctor told me I needed to lose weight I spent a several hours spread over a period of months watching RUclips videos about healthy eating before making up my own mind. I tried a variety of dietary plans (vegetarian, calorie counting, intermittent fasting, ketogenic, etc.) to see if they worked for me and fitted into my lifestyle and budget. I finally settled on a ketogenic animal-based diet as being the best fit for me and lost 20kg this year. But my diet is my personal preference based on my needs. Other people may find that a completely different diet works better for them. The idea that we consumers are too ignorant to make their own decisions without government oversight is complete tosh nowadays. We have something called the internet, so all it takes is a little time and effort to find out everything you need to know. It's particularly worrying that governments often get their dietary advice wrong, such as when they encouraged everyone to eat more carbohydrates and less fat. The only worthwhile guidance they could give is to to avoid processed foods and then tweak your diet from there.
No no, that's impossible. You couldn't possibly do your own research into the matter. You couldn't use Google, AI, or youtube, I just heard this chap tell me so. The government needs to prescribe you with 3 meals a day (maybe 4, maybe 5, how would I kmow), so you're eating what you should be. It could be difficult considering we all have our own dietary needs, but I believe in the state, it always does what's best for the people!
I'm sorry, but you really are making a critical error: not everyone is like you. They may need or want direction, and they may not be able to afford a ketogenic diet, as animal proteins are expensive. So, really it's not about you. It's about everyone, and the state serves everyone, whether they need it or not. And Digital exclusion is a thing. And few don't in some way or another. I mean, you remind of the state of affairs in London before 1666. Then, people who could afford to pay would buy the services of a private fire brigade, to guard their properties from burning down. Only the houses carrying the plaque of a Insurance Company were protect. But unfortunately, that was only a minority of properties who could or did access those services. So when the Great Fire of London took hold, the uninsured houses helped the fire spread, which in many places, overwhelmed the private firefighters, and burnt down those insured properties too... Huge swathes of London were destroyed and people died, because of the lack of communal services, or joined up thinking. Everyone was, as they thought, was protecting themselves, with no thought of how their choices could impact others. So, arguably no Freedom comes without Responsibility. And waiting until a post-mortem after a disaster happens is pretty late to learn that a community response is sometimes far more effective than an individual or familial one. Good Luck with your weight loss.
@CuriousCrow-mp4cx "whether they need it or not", that's the critical line there. The state will force policy upon you where it shouldn't. You make a good point about a fire service, the same could be said about the police and the military, but where do you draw the line? If you don't have some point at which it comes down to people own choices, you've just got communism.
Similar issue with social media. It is so clearly harming children yet the government is slow, vulnerable to lobbying and therefore weak in its actions.
A few more examples. Grenfell & fire safety. Water companies. Vehicle emissions near schools. Infected blood. Post office. Oppositely, Rishi might have got ahead with A.I. but that's easier because the industry is asking for regulation.
Eat less move more simples and a good rule for life and yes I am still fighting my food disires and waistline. We are all responsibly adults and we all need to grow up and deal with this issue in our own way but the nanny state has kept me safe by vacinations and preventity checks.
This advice is too high level and obvious to be useful. Might as well say, earn more and spend less to get rich. Everyone knows both these principles, so why isn’t everyone rich and thin?
Once upon a time, there was a government department for good house keeping; and they advise on such issue as healthy food, well I suppose; that the department fell victim to Thatcher axe.
Alternatively, political parties should be funded by public money only and it should be a crime for any politician to be supported by any outside source.
Reduce speeds around built up areas so people can feel safe to cycle. Everyone is only having to come to a full stop at every junction and obstacle anyway. Dutch have no obesity issue but they've been making their infrastructure spending choices for decades. Their speed on many streets is 30kph or about 18. It could just be 15mph on many smaller streets and that would be even more effective. We should have 15-20-25mph increments instead of 20-30-40 which just creates an environment entirely hostile to life therefore hostile to heath and fitness.
Tax food based on the per-100g amount of sugar in it, payable by the manufacturer. The more sugar in it, the more the price goes up. Set it so that a bag of sugar doubles in price as a starting point.
Of course if they stop adding sugar or use less as in the case of the fizzy drinks sugar tax the manufacturers will no doubt force artificial sweeteners on their customers instead.
The good professor has way too much faith in government … Unfortunately, recent experience shows us government have an absolutely appalling record in giving us advice:- They told you to stay indoors when you would have been safer outside, they moved infected elderly into care homes, they gave people midazolam who might have recovered, they told you to wear masks that were useless, they stopped you going to the gym when staying fit would reduce your risk they told you the jab was safe though they had zero evidence of long-term safety, they told pregnant women to get vaccinated, they inoculate millions of kids who who were not at risk and had already had the disease, they told you natural acquired immunity would not protect you, they told you the jab would stop the spread, they told you the jab would stop you catching covid, they told you nobody is safe until everybody is safe when 99.5% were not at risk anyway, they banned early antiviral treatment, they told you vitamin D was of not use whatsoever, they told you the spike proteins would stay in your arm, they told you disruption of your menstrual cycle was nothing to worry about, they told you there's a thing called 'mild' myocarditis, they told you it came from an animal when they knew it came from a lab, they told you death is knocking at your door - it wasn’t, they still refuse to acknowledge, and research the current high levels of excess deaths, despite record levels of A&E, hospitalisation and record levels Personal Independence Payments - almost twice what they were in 2018. Everything government did and said was the OPPOSITE of what should have been done and said. We are in the hands of fools. THAT is the problem.
A lot of rich people produced the media which make you have these opinions and they spent alot of money to make sure you feel this way and for them it was money well spent.
@@burner9147 But that doesn't change the fact that it's true. And even if the current government was perfect, it doesn't matter when the next one might be corrupt. You have to look at the reality of the situation, not what we'd all like it to be.
@@burner9147; The mainstream media are the propaganda arm of the government misinformation machine. I will never trust the government, or the MSM on health, ever again. (btw, the official UK, JCVI, advise for pregnant women regarding the needle changed on 14/11/24 to “not required”. The opposite of the advise in the states, go figure 🤷♀️)
Knowledge is not static. It evolves, and every perscription given by experts has the often unspoken caveat of 'to our best knowledge.' Plus, our education system at the research level is being funded largely by private companies. So... Moderation in all things is the way to go.
No. It's our own choice, educate people properly about food and leave them to choose. We are programmed to work more hours tham we spend with our families, then to be told what you can and cant eat is too far. No thankyou.
Only if the state can act independently of vested interests, and hold and pursue objective and evidence-based policy making can it then really protect the realm from harm. The problem is that neoliberalism has encouraged entrepreneurial policy making. and policy makers have become entrepreneurial through regulatory capture, picking up jobs in the industries they once regulated when they leave office. Until the State can be free of this influence, there is little hope of improvement. The protection of the very fabric of society should be a priority.
Supermarkets and food manufacturers have too much power over agriculture. Farmers are not really responsible for food production anymore even though they are making a lot of fuss at the moment
Sadly, there are a number of deep running problems which over time come to be seen as intractable. They cannot be undone and re-made without upsetting huge numbers of corporate applecarts, so tinkering is the norm (smoking was a rare exception). There's more evidence now that the mainstream political class feeds on new and old problems as opportunities for political or financial gain or both. I've no faith that the major party leaderships have genuine problem solving as their top motivation.
Well someone should play the role adjudicating between the taxpayer who is funding the NHS and over consumers of unhealthy diets. If I have a healthy diet why should I be paying the medical bills of someone taking less care?
Obesity is a indvidual problem, not a state or governmental problem. There are some who are obese due to sickness, something in the body does not work. But they are few. Most people who are obese are so because they want to, or does not care to do anything about it. What should the state do with that? Force people to eat real food and in the correct amount?
Oh of course. We should be told what to eat, what to drink, where we can go, what we can do, what we can own, what we can think, and what we can say. Did I miss anything?
Richard s right that we consume far too much processed food and too much sugar, where he is wrong however is his promotion of fat. People should be aware that science is clear that excess fat is the major cause of type 2 diabetes, the mechanism has been understood for decades. Low-carb diets such as Atkins and paleo cause immense harm even though for a while they can limit blood glucose. Excess sugar is bad because it encourages people to eat more food which causes obesity, the fat released by our fat bodies then increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, excess fat from the diet causes the same effect. The answer is to eat mostly plant based whole foods, limit added sugar and fats including oils. Such an approach is also good for the environment, as animal consumption is a major contributor to climate change.
That advice is so wrong. There is no science whatsoever that proves fat is the major cause of type to diabetes. Humans and pre humans have been eating meat and associated fats for the last two and a half million years. It is the the natural human diet. Sugar and carbohydrates which turn into sugar are the cause of obesity and type two diabetes. Eating mostly plants will not provide you with the essential nutrients you need to be healthy and survive. Low carb diets do not do immense harm - fact. Do some proper research!
Interesting...would it not be better to heavily tax sugar and processed food / drink and get off the backs of farmers who produce genuine food that everybody should be eating. Educate, support sure.. encourage people to move more, walk more, subsidise public gyms. Dietary advice is constantly changing as well, emphasis used to be on low fat, now its low sugar so its difficult to instruct people regarding their diet.
It would be better to let people eat what they want to eat. There is nothing to 'beat'; in a democracy it is people's right to eat 'too much' by someone else's standards. We can, in fact, make informed choices about what we eat - though we can also always choose not to. I point out a truly crucial point: to be sure, manufacturers or distributors of food can employ certain marketing tactics to boost sales. But there is something that disqualifies government activity to the contrary: the entirety of the democratic mandate rests on a population's capacity to make choices, in aggregate(!) which are meaningful and must be respected. This cannot be squared with 'nudging' or the claim that 'too many' people are overweight.
@@Pinkdam I want to 'like' this comment because in essence it's true. My problem with it is that lobbyists (for and against a given subject/agenda and often highly funded) scew the process. Yep, we can all lobby our local MP regarding things we feel strongly about (apathy is just one reason many don't) but it's easier to jump on a 'petition' or other campaign run by an interest group (often funded by a vested interest, for or against). I accept that this is modern democracy in action. I also accept we can all be convinced to vote against our own best interests. Gee, isn't democracy exciting and possibly dangerous: people being (theoretically) allowed to express opinions and vote on ideas. You can see why certain vested interests in parts of the world are scared by it. Can I 'like' and 'unlike' your comment and still be treated to doughnuts?
@@Pinkdam When we have massive amounts of obesity and people starving to death, just because of how much debt they hold or basically where they are born and then say "we should just leave it all to choice" is not really a democratic decision that I would expect to be a choice in aggregate by the public if they were given it. Saying we should leave it to choice whether virgins are beheaded to make sure the crops are good this year and saying the entire democratic way of life depends on being able to make the choice and keeping the old way of doing things does not have a leg to stand on, saying we can make informed decisions makes no difference to people dying from too much or too little food and I find it disgusting you would belittle the subject down to just a few people overweight, the massive amounts of over consumption, just because you have money, while others starve, is ultimately undemocratic as the people who are starving don't have any choice. The world has a distribution problem, not a supply problem, last year the world produced enough food for everyone to gain weight, choice shouldn't enter it at all, not whether people get basics or not.
@@inguzwulf If I'm ever in a position to give you doughnuts, consider it done. The capacity to initiate recall proceedings against an MP or local representative without, as is currently needed, legal proceedings, would be an improvement. So would the capacity for an electoral area to, in the way of a petition sufficiently approved, put forward legislation or the like to then be raised by their MP in Parliament. Most of us approve of vested interests; we could do with more of them, more widely distributed, however.
@@antonyjh1234 You are quite right in principle, though the delivery could use some work. C. H. Douglas did some good work on ways to fundamentally address the distribution problem, which you may find interesting.
To the right wing such things as the NHS,vaccinations,the state pension,in work benefits ,payments to the disabled and universal education are also part of the"nanny state"
If you have to pick up the tab for people's behaviour, you have a right to address that behaviour. 'Givers have to set the limits, because takers do not have any'. Why not deal with this in the same way as other addictive products? Tax it. Tackles the issue from both ends. Yoghurt in the supermarket, has a 'low fat' section, but not a 'low sugar' section- I have to read the label carefully.
I'm really confused by this post. By this logic why don't government just ban use of sugar / or consumption of alcohol / or ban smoking once and for all?
It’s the balance diet, a little bit of this a little bit of that can do you know harm my next door neighbour would eat oranges a bag of oranges from the supermarket. On the way home then when he was at home you need another bag of oranges story short you’ve got gout, not true, drinking, wine or spirit over indulge in an oranges, citric acid, fast food, processed foods. These are the problem, foods, Coca-Cola, sugar or soft drinks, but it’s the consumption Advertisement I’m a child of the 60s there was still food sorted then, but there was not and I had to say that with my hand on a stack of whatever there was not many fat people in the world. All people seem to do more vigourous exercise grow in their own food in the garden today, it’s a mixture of bad food and sedentary life. Richard is right the House of Commons are right. Humans have the change their way of life.
This is paternalism. I worked in the care sector and we promote autonomy. Patients are provided with enough information to make their own choices. If they make the 'wrong' choices that is a matter for them. The nanny state would ban smoking and drinking altogether as well as control what you should eat, what you should say and what you should think. Besides, as Clement Freud said, "If you don't smoke and you don't drink you don't live any longer, it just seems longer".
The problem is, that there isn’t a choice, UPFs are the norm. They are seriously hard to avoid in the UK and the USA. This isn’t true throughout most of Europe and Asia, where the food cultures are stronger. I cook from scratch at home most days, but out and about, seeing friends, it’s either eat UPF or eat nothing.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? You know, that crazy idea where you just excercise some self control and don't make a complete mess of yourself? That obscure notion of actually looking after yourself ?
That is not what this video is about. It is about the cost to the NHS and us caused by obesity. I agree with you about self control but you only have to look at our society with out of control debt. Or with any addiction it is causing harm but people still do it for short term gains.
@@samr8603 That's the basic problem, isn't it. Blame it on something else, it's not your fault, you're a "victim". NO. It IS your fault - you're the one who kept packing your face with chips... You're the one who watched yourself getting fatter and fatter. You're the one who failed to act.
Right wing think tanks exist because, ultimately, the establishment listens to them on some level, in the same way it listens to left wing think tanks. But none of these think tanks are "far right". A feature of the so called far right in our society is that it is rejected and persecuted by the liberal-left establishment. An establishment represented by university "soft science" professors by the way. If there was such a thing as a far right think tank it would have no purpose because of this. However, if you were to explore the actual "far right" you would find a body of thought that is not at all hostile to the principle of intervention to protect people from the manipulative and controlling excesses of corporate bodies, both public and private sector
For some reason i am unable to 'like' this vid (could be my tablet or digital gremlins, or the nefarious 'doings' of the financial concerns behind the food and sports' science industry..or something else. I do 'like'/👍 this video. It's yet another important message that will be 'papered' over by 'news' outlets or just ignored by the majority of people who don't question what are presented as 'The Truth' by various vested interests. Sure, question what he says but do your own research and i'm pretty sure you'll find out he's not telling porkies (nor is he a Marxist as was levelled at him in a recent Sky interview by a guest..hmm, more Tufton Street influence? I wonder..).
There are some things in life which are frustrating like the weather - but we cannot do anything about. What we eat we can control. Once you start looking into what a typical supermarket stocks and you become aware of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) you begin to realise that way more than 50% of what is sold in a supermarket is unhealthy, to very unhealthy. I am pretty sure most shoppers are not aware of this. Their waist lines confirm that. Focusing on what we can control in our lives, UPF has to be one of the areas as a nation that we do tackle. Cigarettes have gone in my lifetime from healthy to having warning labels on the packets. In Chile UPF has warning labels on the front of the packaging. The UK needs to adopt far better labelling which does not require someone one with 20:20 vision to read it. This issue is only getting worse. Thankfully individuals can do something about this and cut it out of your diet, but not many people are that well educated. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In a democracy the primary task of government is to enable maximum freedom, choice, prosperity and thus happiness of the people. Nobody in the UK has mandated the political class to become their nanny - so politicians assuming the role is tyranny.The state should have no role in setting our priorities and preferences because those decisions will be made by a tiny demographic that will have its own agenda - as we see now in the public sphere. I suggest the primary cause of obesity is growth of the progressive/nanny state which has so distorted the economy that the best food, and means of enjoying it, that we should all be able to afford by now is out of reach for the many. This would also explain the worldwide obesity phenomenon as the 'liberal progressive' steam-roller has undermined freeeom most obviously after the 1960s. For the progressive authoritarians the answer is always more of the same regardless of the damage.
Thought i'd look at the report to see what is classified as Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs), as it feels like a loaded term on first hearing it from you. In Chapter 4 of the report: It appears to be part of "The NOVA classification of food groups" and Group 4 is UPFs, and i have to say this grouping seems rather broad to the point of uselessness for a consumer, and one person in the report notes (paragraph 133) that it is only useful as an industry classification. So you have wholemeal bread, non dairy milks, vegan meat alternatives, baby formula and such things in the same category as the high fat, high sugar, stereotypical unhealthy products you allude to in the video. I'm not against some of the ideas in your video, but the term UPFs seems unhelpful for a regulatory framework, and unhelpful to a consumer.
Wholemeal bread made with the Chorleywood process is not healthy. This an industrial process, accelerated with enzymes, softened flour conditioners and packed with preservatives to enable artificially long shelf lives. The Chorleywood process is the basis of almost all supermarket breads. Vegan meat substitutes are full of all sorts of fillers, emulsifiers, preservatives and fillers that destroy your gut lining and microbiome. Non dairy milks are similarly laden with chemicals. The human body did not evolve on them and they are simply not healthy choices.
Well said Richard! Spot on again 👍 I'm favored, $450k yearly returns on my $30k Bitcoin investment don’t miss the opportunity to buy and invest in Crypto as it's retracing! BE WISE
We have a health industry that doesn't care about our nutrition and a food industry that doesn't care about our health. I totally agree with the majority of this video and its solution but the influence of large corporations is not restricted to one side of the political argument stop trying to divide. You have been accused of being a Marxist in other media, keep politics out of this discussion and stick to the rational arguments you are good at.
Taxing refined seed oils would give the most benefit. Sugar and refined carbs are not as damaging, so should not be the primary focus. Unfortunately the damaging effect of refined seed oils is not widely known, so people are inclined to pick the wrong targets like sugar. I'm not saying not to tax sugar, just hit the worst harm first, and that is seed oils.
My comment was deleted stating this is one area we on the left just dont get it. We dont need our govts dictating our personal diets and health...far more serious issues to deal with
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm 51yrs old. $40,000 weekly and *I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways that I remember my past of how I struggled with many things in life to be where I am today!!!!* ❤️
Hello how do you make such?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down myself because of low finance but I still believe in God
It's Maria Frances Hanlon doing, she's changed my life.
Same here
waking up every 14th of each
month to 210,000 dollars it's a blessing to l and my family... I can now retire knowing that I have a steady income❤️Big gratitude to
Maria Frances Hanlon
I do know Ms. Maria Frances Hanlon, I also have even become successful....
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Ms. Maria Frances Hanlon.
I think there´s a difference between a "nanny state" and providing decent services so people can prosper. In fact, one very cheap intervention that works in improving people´s
health is canal restoration. It´s been shown that if you restore a derelict canal in an area, there tends to be an economic boost, people tend to exercise more, walking along the towpath and it makes the town look more attractive. And you get that for a really cheap investment.
Also, the way PE is taught in many schools is frankly really outdated. It focusses on trying to get people into particular sports (even when you discover you´re useless, like I´m never going to be good at tennis), rather than trying to help people develop healthy exercise plans that they can stick to, and really developing that as a lifelong value.
And frankly, we do need to teach people to cook better. Far too many people go to the chippy all the time instead of eating healthier alternatives, when the healthier alternative is cheaper. I think we do need to change our food culture somewhat in the UK.
The business of govt is business, they do not care about us.
I can't see governments intervening as they are possibly funded and lobbied by vested interests. We are encouraged to eat processed foods on all political sides. Certain billionaires have bought up farmland and have shares in fake meat which is highly processed.
Yes, and we need a push against extreme veganism, wich creates a market for fake meat. Vegans may think they are preventing animals from being killed when in effect they are ultimately preventing them from being born!
@@peterfoster8004well that's entering a weird philosophical debate
See now, I genuinely believe that people would eat however is best for them if they were regularly able to. More and more people live paycheck to paycheck. The unhealthiest options are often the cheapest for feeding you for longer.
@@elilallathin3283 people arguing for others to eat non processed foods should explain exactly how a nation can afford it, not to mention it would probably mean no food imports...on an individual basis wed need more money
Sue the Government. They failed in their duty. I would happily contribute to such cause.
Totalitarian state; Want your pittance? Look for a job or be sanctioned. Does poverty need a nanny state? As a child of the 80's we taste tested crisps as a lesson with a factory tour for a whole day, our future jobs🤔
Brilliant and timely 'food products' video Richard. Christmas is the ultra food manufacturers chance for the equivalent of a massive drugs orgy, to get the public hooked for yet another coming year on ultra processed foods and really is the sales pitch for those products. That's the products which costs the NHS the bulk of its budget each year.
Growing children need plenty of running about outside & good wholesome food. When I was growing up my mother didnt need to go out to work because it was possible to live on one wage. There was time to cook proper food & always a roast on Sundays. We would walk to & from school - 2 miles & spend all our time at home outdoors. There was only 1 overweight child in our class or even in our whole primary school & they were teased unmercifully. Nobody wanted to be fat. Then came Television...!
@@jackiecullum9657 I don't think people want to be fat
@@jackiecullum9657 UK kids are now on average 9 cm shorter than their EE peers when they start primary school. Big food hasn’t taken over less developed EE markets and their kids don’t eat as much UPF. There wasn’t any difference in height a few decades ago.
I rather have a big government than be left to the mercy of big businesses
I agree. But the challenge is keeping the two separate.
Ever considered moving to Venezuela or maybe Cuba?
With big business it's your freedom of choice.
@@stevo728822 What freedom of choice do we have regarding our water supply? I don't like United Utilities so I'm going to stop using water. Think outside the box once in your life.
@@stevo728822 b.s if they make the cheap food then same way and you are poor what freedom is that.
the rich have spent alot of money to make you think that.
You're much better off cutting all sugar out of your diet and eating as much fat as you like than the other way around. The advice is entirely upside down.
Except I want to enjoy what I eat, so I’ll continue to have a biscuit, or currently a mince pie, or a portion of rhubarb crumble (I’ve still got rhubarb in the freezer from the huge pile my neighbour gave me and my own rhubarb plant will be harvestable next year).
I do use whole milk though and butter, though I spread my morning toast with tahini. Admittedly there was a fair amount of butter and cheese in the vegetable and walnut cobbler I made yesterday.
I don’t really know what most people eat. I do know that the majority of products in supermarkets is stuff I’d never buy, and I’ve never understood why nearly everyone thinks those breakfast cereals are a healthy start to the day. I’ve always been a weirdo.
@@sososoprano1 All hail the world's weirdos!
And let's not forget the delights of the sugared doughnut (with real, honest to goodness sugar): ban 'healthy' doughnuts.
@@sososoprano1I found out I had high cholesterol. I changed my diet completely , biscuits, chocolate ,red meat, diary etc food cooked in coconut milk,and went out the window. I go to the gym 6 days a week but had to re educate myself with regards to my diet.
Especially saturated fats. Ancel Keys has a lot to answer for. If the FDA and Public Health England have got it wrong for the past 40 years just double down on the advice. Should we leave things to 'the experts'? Milliband will force us to be vegetarians if he has his way. Nanny state no thanks.
@@paulnnaish Vested interests, for and against, are the problem with the 'nanny state'. The state needn't be a 'nanny' state if politicians did not allow their personal funding (of themselves or their pet projects) to be their primary motivator - they're not all corrupt but as is the case with most of us humans their thinking is easily corrupted. I'd rather live in a state that cared (but let me make my own mind up) than one that was only interested in future funding (decided by whichever vested interest could put more money on the table).
Sure, it's all gotta be paid for and the current system seems to be easily sabotaged by ideology but I still want a state governed for the benefit of the majority of humans not for the benefit of bank accounts of the decision makers of large (especially financial) institutions.
Ps: I have many pet hates re 'nanny' state thinking (the ban on lock knives, which I consider to be collective punishment, for one) but I think we all do.
Totally agree. It's not a nanny state if looks after the interests of its people - in my opinion. Lobbies often exist to promote their own interests ahead of the people and the planet and the sugar lobby has been no different. It seems quite evident whose interests are given priority.
Sugar is the most expensive and dangerous drug in the world.
I don't recall stories of people overdosing on sugar
@@skyblazeeternono but I don’t recall anyone getting obese or diabetic from heroin.
@@skyblazeeterno Like most things even plain and simple water too much will kill you eventually.
@@scottyfive4319 yep but drinking enough water for it to be dangerous is basically impossible, but eating to much sugar for it to be bad for your health is incredibly easy.
@@skyblazeeterno Alcohol is a sugar and there are plenty of examples af alcohol overdosing!!
Brilliant Richard! Spot on again.
There were very few obese people in the 1950s (even though much of the food was ultra-processed. People did far more physical and standing up jobs. A lot of people now sit down at a desk for 8+ hours a day. You can see people, women in particular, whose job is sitting down in an office .... that place the government wants you to go to, so that people support coffee shops and places selling UPF to office workers...
You're absolutely right. It's all about the truth. Something governments continually run from. Let's hope it comes out. Best wishes. Al.
Ultra processed foods are good for the GDP, and GDP growth is driven by the need to grow revenues by taxes on wages goods and services.
There is no VAT or Income Tax to be collected from preparing food from fresh ingredients at home.
The state is the main problem.
Land use, planning policies have forced us into cars.
Private companies are the main problem.
And GDP is the least useful measure for the good of society and the protection of the planet.
@jimshelley8831
How so?
Thank you for this video. I think it also links nicely about your recent one about farmers and the lack of money they earn from selling their products. I usually shop on line, but went to my local Sainsbury’s a few weeks ago and it was aisle after aisle of processed junk - I can’t call it food. Healthier food (meat, fish, fruit and vegetables) was in the minority (10% of surface area- a guess). This also is rather expensive in comparison and requires extra effort to prepare and cook. Government intervention is needed. The companies making Britain sick should be paying for their harm.
It does appear that the promotion of "low fat" vegitable oils processed foods are worse for us than the beef suet. dripping and lard with bread and cakes made from butter. The "low sugar" items with artificial sweetners seem have no , or negative effects. Although we also spend much longer inside rather than outside (building flats rather than terraced houses affecting how we move around and play) and do less physical work ( which in itself may have foreshortened quality of life for many people ), with lots of sitting around with computer screens and so on, some of the thinnest people in my area are the road sweepers, however so are some of the fattest , so make of that what you will
From Mary Poppins to Nanny McFee, nanny is usually right.
Same argument for combustable cladding, how can the average individual know.
Uninformed choice is no choice at all. Just like brexit.
In the late 70's. I had heard of people with Diabetes....but never met anybody who had it.
Well, how about now?
A good education is what the population needs for independent thinking not North Korea, and an environment to thrive. How far have we fallen away from the tree :( for people to be so deluded.
We don't need 1984!!!
What do you really know about North Korea apart from the usual propaganda.
@@jimshelley8831Is the Earth flat?
I believe a lot of those illnesses stem more from STRESS rather than sugar and its over consumption - the sugar consumption is an effect and not a cause.
People across the world have been suffering through roller coaster economies, elitist government/ judicial systems, and a polluted world contingent upon greed … therefore, people are CONSTANTLY being bombarded with INSTABILITY - having no reprieve for rest and peace.
Consequently, people consume cheap foods to deal with the always impending stress/doom.
People are so fragile they have no ability to deal with their reality more like
Poor diet IS a form of stress.
Beware of anyone wanting to protect your freedom of choice. They invariably end up making sure that you "choose" something which benefits them and and not you.
"Beware of anyone wanting to protect your freedom of choice" Well political in the UK; when it came to freedom of choice, there's not much to choose from, the system is thus screwed together, that the choices offered are either Labour, or Tory.
Process foods are designed to be addictive and contain the killer seed oils. If we all went back to eating fresh fruit, veg and meat we'd all be a lot healthier. People cut out animal fats which our digestive system evolved to digest because the food industry had an idea to make money.
@@michaelmayo3127 I don't disagree but I was arguing the in the context of the articlle
Education, job done.
The government wants to create the ideal taxable units; work from 18 to 66, dies shortly after.
Not sure whether the current government want that, but they are too afraid of the people with the money and real power.
Very well put, thank you
The Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, …etc. When will people like Richard ever learn?
You fail to see the difference between the 'nanny state' and totalitarian regimes. No one wants to be told what to do every minute of every moment of our lives, but responsible governments should be getting involved in things that are bad or dangerous to us. Eg. dangerous cladding on buildings that are not fire proof and lead to the deaths of hundreds of people. Or are examples like that the nanny state to you?
*lists totally irrelevant cases*
When will people like Richard ever learn?
You have learned Western propaganda well. What do they tell you about the genoc!de? That it's good, actually?
'Cuba is bad, but genoc!de is good' 😹
This comment says so much more about you than anything else.
As the Greeks would say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions…..go figure
We absolutely DO NOT need the nanny state - Government exists to carry out the will of the people, not to be used like so many pawns on a Chess Board !
As you can tell from my name, I am not a far right, yet I believe that the state's interference here is nanny state. As an adult, I should be free to make my dietary choices without the interference of the state
That's OK if you are also willing to pay for the health treatments, that your life choice brings with it. However, if other have to pay via a collective NHS, then than should also have a say in what you eat.
@@michaelmayo3127 I am actually currently on a weight loss program, which has enable me to lose a few stones. So your point doesn't apply to me. That stated, I stand by my statement that the State should not regulate the diet of her people.
You're not free to make those decisions unless you fully understand what is in those mass produced edible products and how they affect your health.
@@LilOlFunnyBoy My weight loss program is based on reducing the amount of calories I consume (from 2500 per day to 1500 per day).
You still want to access health services that are collectively insured? Then your freedom comes with a responsibility not to abuse it. Your choice has consequences. Choose wisely.
We have arrived at a place where the cost of living has risen to a point where most jobs barely support a single person. It leaves no time for a healthy lifestyle or staying at home to raise a family. These things are not valued. All that matters is an individual's input into the economy while the economy spews out convenient microwavable filth to consume in a 15 minute break.
What is needed is a better work/life balance, food education and some pride in our food culture.
The state needs to remember that it is in a social contract with the People. If it falls too short on it's side of the contract, then it's political legitimacy will be called into question.
2TK and his bunch of halfwits are about to find this out for themselves....
I must be a right-winger then. After my doctor told me I needed to lose weight I spent a several hours spread over a period of months watching RUclips videos about healthy eating before making up my own mind. I tried a variety of dietary plans (vegetarian, calorie counting, intermittent fasting, ketogenic, etc.) to see if they worked for me and fitted into my lifestyle and budget. I finally settled on a ketogenic animal-based diet as being the best fit for me and lost 20kg this year.
But my diet is my personal preference based on my needs. Other people may find that a completely different diet works better for them. The idea that we consumers are too ignorant to make their own decisions without government oversight is complete tosh nowadays. We have something called the internet, so all it takes is a little time and effort to find out everything you need to know.
It's particularly worrying that governments often get their dietary advice wrong, such as when they encouraged everyone to eat more carbohydrates and less fat. The only worthwhile guidance they could give is to to avoid processed foods and then tweak your diet from there.
No no, that's impossible. You couldn't possibly do your own research into the matter. You couldn't use Google, AI, or youtube, I just heard this chap tell me so.
The government needs to prescribe you with 3 meals a day (maybe 4, maybe 5, how would I kmow), so you're eating what you should be. It could be difficult considering we all have our own dietary needs, but I believe in the state, it always does what's best for the people!
I'm sorry, but you really are making a critical error: not everyone is like you. They may need or want direction, and they may not be able to afford a ketogenic diet, as animal proteins are expensive. So, really it's not about you. It's about everyone, and the state serves everyone, whether they need it or not. And Digital exclusion is a thing. And few don't in some way or another. I mean, you remind of the state of affairs in London before 1666. Then, people who could afford to pay would buy the services of a private fire brigade, to guard their properties from burning down. Only the houses carrying the plaque of a Insurance Company were protect. But unfortunately, that was only a minority of properties who could or did access those services. So when the Great Fire of London took hold, the uninsured houses helped the fire spread, which in many places, overwhelmed the private firefighters, and burnt down those insured properties too... Huge swathes of London were destroyed and people died, because of the lack of communal services, or joined up thinking. Everyone was, as they thought, was protecting themselves, with no thought of how their choices could impact others. So, arguably no Freedom comes without Responsibility. And waiting until a post-mortem after a disaster happens is pretty late to learn that a community response is sometimes far more effective than an individual or familial one. Good Luck with your weight loss.
@CuriousCrow-mp4cx "whether they need it or not", that's the critical line there. The state will force policy upon you where it shouldn't. You make a good point about a fire service, the same could be said about the police and the military, but where do you draw the line? If you don't have some point at which it comes down to people own choices, you've just got communism.
Similar issue with social media. It is so clearly harming children yet the government is slow, vulnerable to lobbying and therefore weak in its actions.
A few more examples. Grenfell & fire safety. Water companies. Vehicle emissions near schools. Infected blood. Post office. Oppositely, Rishi might have got ahead with A.I. but that's easier because the industry is asking for regulation.
Eat less move more simples and a good rule for life and yes I am still fighting my food disires and waistline. We are all responsibly adults and we all need to grow up and deal with this issue in our own way but the nanny state has kept me safe by vacinations and preventity checks.
Sadly to exercise enough to burn off excessive eating requires running a marathon a day, most people do not have time for that.
This advice is too high level and obvious to be useful. Might as well say, earn more and spend less to get rich. Everyone knows both these principles, so why isn’t everyone rich and thin?
@@disarchitected I agree Zoe - has some good ideas but too much waffle and not enough instruction about what is good and what is not healthy.
@@disarchitected I have made one of the two but still working on being thin .
Once upon a time, there was a government department for good house keeping; and they advise on such issue as healthy food, well I suppose; that the department fell victim to Thatcher axe.
Love your vlogs
Alternatively, political parties should be funded by public money only and it should be a crime for any politician to be supported by any outside source.
Reduce speeds around built up areas so people can feel safe to cycle. Everyone is only having to come to a full stop at every junction and obstacle anyway. Dutch have no obesity issue but they've been making their infrastructure spending choices for decades. Their speed on many streets is 30kph or about 18. It could just be 15mph on many smaller streets and that would be even more effective.
We should have 15-20-25mph increments instead of 20-30-40 which just creates an environment entirely hostile to life therefore hostile to heath and fitness.
Stop adding sugar to our food and all we need is love.
Tax food based on the per-100g amount of sugar in it, payable by the manufacturer. The more sugar in it, the more the price goes up. Set it so that a bag of sugar doubles in price as a starting point.
Of course if they stop adding sugar or use less as in the case of the fizzy drinks sugar tax the manufacturers will no doubt force artificial sweeteners on their customers instead.
The good professor has way too much faith in government … Unfortunately, recent experience shows us government have an absolutely appalling record in giving us advice:-
They told you to stay indoors when you would have been safer outside,
they moved infected elderly into care homes,
they gave people midazolam who might have recovered,
they told you to wear masks that were useless,
they stopped you going to the gym when staying fit would reduce your risk
they told you the jab was safe though they had zero evidence of long-term safety,
they told pregnant women to get vaccinated,
they inoculate millions of kids who who were not at risk and had already had the disease,
they told you natural acquired immunity would not protect you,
they told you the jab would stop the spread,
they told you the jab would stop you catching covid,
they told you nobody is safe until everybody is safe when 99.5% were not at risk anyway,
they banned early antiviral treatment,
they told you vitamin D was of not use whatsoever,
they told you the spike proteins would stay in your arm,
they told you disruption of your menstrual cycle was nothing to worry about,
they told you there's a thing called 'mild' myocarditis,
they told you it came from an animal when they knew it came from a lab,
they told you death is knocking at your door - it wasn’t,
they still refuse to acknowledge, and research the current high levels of excess deaths, despite record levels of A&E, hospitalisation and record levels Personal Independence Payments - almost twice what they were in 2018.
Everything government did and said was the OPPOSITE of what should have been done and said.
We are in the hands of fools. THAT is the problem.
100%.
A lot of rich people produced the media which make you have these opinions and they spent alot of money to make sure you feel this way and for them it was money well spent.
@@burner9147 But that doesn't change the fact that it's true.
And even if the current government was perfect, it doesn't matter when the next one might be corrupt.
You have to look at the reality of the situation, not what we'd all like it to be.
@@burner9147; The mainstream media are the propaganda arm of the government misinformation machine. I will never trust the government, or the MSM on health, ever again.
(btw, the official UK, JCVI, advise for pregnant women regarding the needle changed on 14/11/24 to “not required”. The opposite of the advise in the states, go figure 🤷♀️)
They were also afraid of another terminology that alowed brooming gangs to flourish.
Richard, thank you for the informative and unbiased content you provide. Are you on bluesky so i can follow you on there rather then the other place?
The route to health is in each of our hands. Remember the government saying eggs are bad for us. That fats are bad for us etc…
Knowledge is not static. It evolves, and every perscription given by experts has the often unspoken caveat of 'to our best knowledge.' Plus, our education system at the research level is being funded largely by private companies. So... Moderation in all things is the way to go.
excellent, it's time our politicians acted on our behalf and it's time we only elected ones that would!
No. It's our own choice, educate people properly about food and leave them to choose. We are programmed to work more hours tham we spend with our families, then to be told what you can and cant eat is too far. No thankyou.
Only if the state can act independently of vested interests, and hold and pursue objective and evidence-based policy making can it then really protect the realm from harm. The problem is that neoliberalism has encouraged entrepreneurial policy making. and policy makers have become entrepreneurial through regulatory capture, picking up jobs in the industries they once regulated when they leave office. Until the State can be free of this influence, there is little hope of improvement. The protection of the very fabric of society should be a priority.
The food industry has too.much influence .
Supermarkets and food manufacturers have too much power over agriculture. Farmers are not really responsible for food production anymore even though they are making a lot of fuss at the moment
Sadly, there are a number of deep running problems which over time come to be seen as intractable. They cannot be undone and re-made without upsetting huge numbers of corporate applecarts, so tinkering is the norm (smoking was a rare exception). There's more evidence now that the mainstream political class feeds on new and old problems as opportunities for political or financial gain or both. I've no faith that the major party leaderships have genuine problem solving as their top motivation.
Well someone should play the role adjudicating between the taxpayer who is funding the NHS and over consumers of unhealthy diets. If I have a healthy diet why should I be paying the medical bills of someone taking less care?
The cost to you for other people healthcare is in pence.
It better the NHS pays for everyone than the horrors of the American system
Obesity is a indvidual problem, not a state or governmental problem.
There are some who are obese due to sickness, something in the body does not work. But they are few. Most people who are obese are so because they want to, or does not care to do anything about it. What should the state do with that? Force people to eat real food and in the correct amount?
Oh of course. We should be told what to eat, what to drink, where we can go, what we can do, what we can own, what we can think, and what we can say. Did I miss anything?
You missed getting jabbed.
Richard s right that we consume far too much processed food and too much sugar, where he is wrong however is his promotion of fat.
People should be aware that science is clear that excess fat is the major cause of type 2 diabetes, the mechanism has been understood for decades. Low-carb diets such as Atkins and paleo cause immense harm even though for a while they can limit blood glucose. Excess sugar is bad because it encourages people to eat more food which causes obesity, the fat released by our fat bodies then increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, excess fat from the diet causes the same effect.
The answer is to eat mostly plant based whole foods, limit added sugar and fats including oils. Such an approach is also good for the environment, as animal consumption is a major contributor to climate change.
That advice is so wrong. There is no science whatsoever that proves fat is the major cause of type to diabetes. Humans and pre humans have been eating meat and associated fats for the last two and a half million years. It is the the natural human diet. Sugar and carbohydrates which turn into sugar are the cause of obesity and type two diabetes. Eating mostly plants will not provide you with the essential nutrients you need to be healthy and survive. Low carb diets do not do immense harm - fact. Do some proper research!
Interesting...would it not be better to heavily tax sugar and processed food / drink and get off the backs of farmers who produce genuine food that everybody should be eating. Educate, support sure.. encourage people to move more, walk more, subsidise public gyms. Dietary advice is constantly changing as well, emphasis used to be on low fat, now its low sugar so its difficult to instruct people regarding their diet.
It would be better to let people eat what they want to eat. There is nothing to 'beat'; in a democracy it is people's right to eat 'too much' by someone else's standards. We can, in fact, make informed choices about what we eat - though we can also always choose not to.
I point out a truly crucial point: to be sure, manufacturers or distributors of food can employ certain marketing tactics to boost sales. But there is something that disqualifies government activity to the contrary: the entirety of the democratic mandate rests on a population's capacity to make choices, in aggregate(!) which are meaningful and must be respected. This cannot be squared with 'nudging' or the claim that 'too many' people are overweight.
@@Pinkdam I want to 'like' this comment because in essence it's true. My problem with it is that lobbyists (for and against a given subject/agenda and often highly funded) scew the process. Yep, we can all lobby our local MP regarding things we feel strongly about (apathy is just one reason many don't) but it's easier to jump on a 'petition' or other campaign run by an interest group (often funded by a vested interest, for or against).
I accept that this is modern democracy in action. I also accept we can all be convinced to vote against our own best interests.
Gee, isn't democracy exciting and possibly dangerous: people being (theoretically) allowed to express opinions and vote on ideas. You can see why certain vested interests in parts of the world are scared by it.
Can I 'like' and 'unlike' your comment and still be treated to doughnuts?
@@Pinkdam When we have massive amounts of obesity and people starving to death, just because of how much debt they hold or basically where they are born and then say "we should just leave it all to choice" is not really a democratic decision that I would expect to be a choice in aggregate by the public if they were given it. Saying we should leave it to choice whether virgins are beheaded to make sure the crops are good this year and saying the entire democratic way of life depends on being able to make the choice and keeping the old way of doing things does not have a leg to stand on, saying we can make informed decisions makes no difference to people dying from too much or too little food and I find it disgusting you would belittle the subject down to just a few people overweight, the massive amounts of over consumption, just because you have money, while others starve, is ultimately undemocratic as the people who are starving don't have any choice. The world has a distribution problem, not a supply problem, last year the world produced enough food for everyone to gain weight, choice shouldn't enter it at all, not whether people get basics or not.
@@inguzwulf If I'm ever in a position to give you doughnuts, consider it done.
The capacity to initiate recall proceedings against an MP or local representative without, as is currently needed, legal proceedings, would be an improvement.
So would the capacity for an electoral area to, in the way of a petition sufficiently approved, put forward legislation or the like to then be raised by their MP in Parliament.
Most of us approve of vested interests; we could do with more of them, more widely distributed, however.
@@antonyjh1234 You are quite right in principle, though the delivery could use some work.
C. H. Douglas did some good work on ways to fundamentally address the distribution problem, which you may find interesting.
To the right wing such things as the NHS,vaccinations,the state pension,in work benefits ,payments to the disabled and universal education are also part of the"nanny state"
It’s all to do with money.
Isn’t it ironic that the Great British Bakeoff is for Stand up to cancer.
No.
The title of the video works better if properly recast as _We can beat obesity only if the state acts in ways the far right calls the ‘nanny state’._
If you have to pick up the tab for people's behaviour, you have a right to address that behaviour. 'Givers have to set the limits, because takers do not have any'.
Why not deal with this in the same way as other addictive products? Tax it. Tackles the issue from both ends.
Yoghurt in the supermarket, has a 'low fat' section, but not a 'low sugar' section- I have to read the label carefully.
If you pay for healthcare you'd take more care of your diet.
I totally agree 👍 130 weeks 🐂
Not over-protective. Invasive.
I'm really confused by this post. By this logic why don't government just ban use of sugar / or consumption of alcohol / or ban smoking once and for all?
Voters
It’s the government’s responsibility to look after its citizens
SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMENTS REPEATING TALKING POINTS FROM RIGHTWING THINK TANKS AND ACTING LIKE IT'S THEIR OWN OPINIONS
It’s the balance diet, a little bit of this a little bit of that can do you know harm my next door neighbour would eat oranges a bag of oranges from the supermarket. On the way home then when he was at home you need another bag of oranges story short you’ve got gout, not true, drinking, wine or spirit over indulge in an oranges, citric acid, fast food, processed foods. These are the problem, foods, Coca-Cola, sugar or soft drinks, but it’s the consumption Advertisement I’m a child of the 60s there was still food sorted then, but there was not and I had to say that with my hand on a stack of whatever there was not many fat people in the world. All people seem to do more vigourous exercise grow in their own food in the garden today, it’s a mixture of bad food and sedentary life. Richard is right the House of Commons are right. Humans have the change their way of life.
This is paternalism. I worked in the care sector and we promote autonomy. Patients are provided with enough information to make their own choices. If they make the 'wrong' choices that is a matter for them. The nanny state would ban smoking and drinking altogether as well as control what you should eat, what you should say and what you should think.
Besides, as Clement Freud said, "If you don't smoke and you don't drink you don't live any longer, it just seems longer".
The problem is, that there isn’t a choice, UPFs are the norm. They are seriously hard to avoid in the UK and the USA. This isn’t true throughout most of Europe and Asia, where the food cultures are stronger. I cook from scratch at home most days, but out and about, seeing friends, it’s either eat UPF or eat nothing.
@@disarchitected Good point. More farm foods then?
They banned smoking for the young. They should now ban alcohol for the over 45.
And fun for over 75s!
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
You know, that crazy idea where you just excercise some self control and don't make a complete mess of yourself? That obscure notion of actually looking after yourself ?
That is not what this video is about. It is about the cost to the NHS and us caused by obesity. I agree with you about self control but you only have to look at our society with out of control debt. Or with any addiction it is causing harm but people still do it for short term gains.
@@samr8603 That's the basic problem, isn't it. Blame it on something else, it's not your fault, you're a "victim". NO. It IS your fault - you're the one who kept packing your face with chips... You're the one who watched yourself getting fatter and fatter. You're the one who failed to act.
this bloke is weird
Any comments on your recent car crash tv interview ?
The NHS was made to meet our healthcare needs, not be used as a cudgel to excuse restrictions on people's behaviour 'to save the NHS money'.
Right wing think tanks exist because, ultimately, the establishment listens to them on some level, in the same way it listens to left wing think tanks.
But none of these think tanks are "far right". A feature of the so called far right in our society is that it is rejected and persecuted by the liberal-left establishment. An establishment represented by university "soft science" professors by the way.
If there was such a thing as a far right think tank it would have no purpose because of this.
However, if you were to explore the actual "far right" you would find a body of thought that is not at all hostile to the principle of intervention to protect people from the manipulative and controlling excesses of corporate bodies, both public and private sector
i new this guy was a marxist
'Far Right ' ?
We are all far right now. A tad right apparently no longer exists. That such terms are freely used by the media is bias of the highest order.
Oh great, more theory from the library
❤❤❤❤❤
For some reason i am unable to 'like' this vid (could be my tablet or digital gremlins, or the nefarious 'doings' of the financial concerns behind the food and sports' science industry..or something else. I do 'like'/👍 this video. It's yet another important message that will be 'papered' over by 'news' outlets or just ignored by the majority of people who don't question what are presented as 'The Truth' by various vested interests. Sure, question what he says but do your own research and i'm pretty sure you'll find out he's not telling porkies (nor is he a Marxist as was levelled at him in a recent Sky interview by a guest..hmm, more Tufton Street influence? I wonder..).
Cronyism explains 99% of this channels gripes with our country
There are some things in life which are frustrating like the weather - but we cannot do anything about. What we eat we can control. Once you start looking into what a typical supermarket stocks and you become aware of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) you begin to realise that way more than 50% of what is sold in a supermarket is unhealthy, to very unhealthy. I am pretty sure most shoppers are not aware of this. Their waist lines confirm that. Focusing on what we can control in our lives, UPF has to be one of the areas as a nation that we do tackle. Cigarettes have gone in my lifetime from healthy to having warning labels on the packets. In Chile UPF has warning labels on the front of the packaging. The UK needs to adopt far better labelling which does not require someone one with 20:20 vision to read it. This issue is only getting worse. Thankfully individuals can do something about this and cut it out of your diet, but not many people are that well educated. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In a democracy the primary task of government is to enable maximum freedom, choice, prosperity and thus happiness of the people. Nobody in the UK has mandated the political class to become their nanny - so politicians assuming the role is tyranny.The state should have no role in setting our priorities and preferences because those decisions will be made by a tiny demographic that will have its own agenda - as we see now in the public sphere. I suggest the primary cause of obesity is growth of the progressive/nanny state which has so distorted the economy that the best food, and means of enjoying it, that we should all be able to afford by now is out of reach for the many. This would also explain the worldwide obesity phenomenon as the 'liberal progressive' steam-roller has undermined freeeom most obviously after the 1960s. For the progressive authoritarians the answer is always more of the same regardless of the damage.
People didn't used to think like this but think tanks funded by the ultra wealthy wanted to remove regulations so they had media push this narrative
Stop benefits and health care on any fatty that won’t look their own well being.
Thought i'd look at the report to see what is classified as Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs), as it feels like a loaded term on first hearing it from you. In Chapter 4 of the report: It appears to be part of "The NOVA classification of food groups" and Group 4 is UPFs, and i have to say this grouping seems rather broad to the point of uselessness for a consumer, and one person in the report notes (paragraph 133) that it is only useful as an industry classification.
So you have wholemeal bread, non dairy milks, vegan meat alternatives, baby formula and such things in the same category as the high fat, high sugar, stereotypical unhealthy products you allude to in the video. I'm not against some of the ideas in your video, but the term UPFs seems unhelpful for a regulatory framework, and unhelpful to a consumer.
Wholemeal bread made with the Chorleywood process is not healthy. This an industrial process, accelerated with enzymes, softened flour conditioners and packed with preservatives to enable artificially long shelf lives. The Chorleywood process is the basis of almost all supermarket breads. Vegan meat substitutes are full of all sorts of fillers, emulsifiers, preservatives and fillers that destroy your gut lining and microbiome. Non dairy milks are similarly laden with chemicals. The human body did not evolve on them and they are simply not healthy choices.
You have to be trolling there is no way a human being can actually be this stupid
Well said Richard! Spot on again 👍
I'm favored, $450k yearly returns on my $30k Bitcoin investment don’t miss the opportunity to buy and invest in Crypto as it's retracing! BE WISE
@PhilipStrong-w9t It's Melissa Hicks my expert trader,she changed my life I invested $30k with her and I just took my yearly return last week.
+176
5409
6243
@@KelvinHopkins-j3z I heard people invested large amounts with Ms. Hicks and lost all their money, can you confirm?
We have a health industry that doesn't care about our nutrition and a food industry that doesn't care about our health. I totally agree with the majority of this video and its solution but the influence of large corporations is not restricted to one side of the political argument stop trying to divide. You have been accused of being a Marxist in other media, keep politics out of this discussion and stick to the rational arguments you are good at.
Yes -successive British governments have been so efficient that we should follow advice that they give.You talk rubbish sir.
Richard luvs RFK Jr.?
Taxing refined seed oils would give the most benefit. Sugar and refined carbs are not as damaging, so should not be the primary focus. Unfortunately the damaging effect of refined seed oils is not widely known, so people are inclined to pick the wrong targets like sugar. I'm not saying not to tax sugar, just hit the worst harm first, and that is seed oils.
Agree cooking in Lard, Beef Dripping turns out to be the healthy way.
Rape and sunflower oil bad, olive oil good? This is the first time that I've heard that seed oil is harmful. We use rapeseed oil regularly.
I found your previous video intelligent.
This one ...nahhh
My comment was deleted stating this is one area we on the left just dont get it. We dont need our govts dictating our personal diets and health...far more serious issues to deal with
The big process food companies would find a way to influence that branch of government and force everyone to eat their food
@elliottmarshall1424 rubbish
@@skyblazeeterno It happens now, it is not rubbish
@antonyjh1234 so people eating healthily don't exist?
@@antonyjh1234 it doesn't happen now