all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 1 year ago

"Remember when it used to be at least affordable to speedrun yourself into an untimely grave through poor nutritional choices and/or prohibitive socioeconomic status?

Pepperidge Farm remembers. ^Pepperidge Farm was there.^

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Why only for certain foods? This practice is misleading at best.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Buy 2 get a 50% discount"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Price or multibuy promotions

    First words of the article

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Headline alone does beg the question though.

    I do like the BBC and will click the link, though I admit to skimming and missing the first line. (Also not the person you replied to.) I just hate how it redirects .co.uk to .com based on my physical location. This is a UK thing but redirecting me to the US version of the site makes it seem like it's not a UK thing, silly as that may be. The article is mirrored, just let people read it on the .co.uk, since they had to load that page initially anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    buy it's still okay to sell unhealthy food? so this is the shit we're living in?

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Scanned that, not seeing the definition of "unhealthy". Anyway, I'm in on about any measure to cut obesity. It's a monster problem, certainly in the US.

    Look around your doctor's office. Seems almost every person is fat. Look at people wearing leg casts, except for skinny teens who are probably in sports, all fat. No matter the state's medical system, fat people are a huge drain. I cannot take anyone seriously who disagrees.

    Anyway, I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, young adult in the 90s. It was a very different world. Daily I see people in public that hardly existed in the day.

    Walked 1.25 miles home in the summer heat from my mechanic's shop today. Wife thought I was nuts. Took my kids hiking the trails to the creek. "How faaaar daddy?" "Little over a mile." "DAAAD!" We started gym class with a mile jog, from 6-yo to 12-yo.

    I'd argue obesity is a climate change driver. Anyone who disagrees likely doesn't get out in the country and/or understand farming and ranching. Yet few have an issue stating that eating meat is a problem contributing to all of the above. What about all the energy we put into producing and shipping all our food?

    For what it's worth, I'm skinny as hell, and despite abusing the hell out of myself, no real problems, even into middle age. Started a job working my ass off, dropped 3 minor health issues in a month. Now that I quit, 2 are back with another coming. My skinny wife has minor heart issues. Cannot convince her that sitting around her office and bed is making it worse.

    Humans did not evolve to be fat or lazy. We have to eat simply and we have to move.

  • source
  • 49 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    For me, someone who has struggled with stress eating (often with junk food), the price increases with the junk food items alongside less and less multi buy promotions for them have been encouraging me to eat better, make my own food etc.

    I am not blaming the availability of these unhealthy items as the biggest issue, and I acknowledge it's an internal situation more than anything, yet these initiatives have been a welcomed push to get me in the right direction.
    It's just a good influence.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    No fizzy pop meal deals, no porn, digital ID and you can't even burn a migrant hotel any more.

    We used to be a proper country.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can't they just make healthy food cheaper

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    ...and replaced with more BOGOF for healthier items?

    Oh, nothing? Oh, okay

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Unless the government brings out their own range of supermarkets, that won't happen.

    They can ban deals on unhealthy foods. They can't compel private companies to offer deals, and I feel if they tried it'd backfire with companies just raising food prices to compensate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    FFS the problem is the price disparity between standard prices and "loyalty card" prices. It's anti-competitive.

    How is that not obvious to politicians?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You can have loyalty cards from as many shops as you want, so it's not inherently anti-competitive. They're not even particularly meant to encourage loyalty, they're a way to track what individuals buy over multiple trips and then deliver targeted advertising. The non-loyalty-card prices are high to ensure that customers are incentivised to sign away their data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Well, they used to encourage loyalty because it was feasible to collects points and convert them into tangible things (e.g. My parents used to get trips to theme parks etc). Points are almost worthless now so there's no incentive to stick with one shop. I end up going to 3 or 4 different shops to get what I need due to price.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Which shop does that other than Tesco?
    I've not been in a Waitrose or a Sainsburys in a few years but I've not seen that problem in Morrisons, Co-op, Lidl, or Aldi.

    Serious question because Tesco take the piss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That always bugged me. How about half-price?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    This think of the children phase the government has got going in is just making everything more shit.. Don’t ruin everything just because some people can’t control themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    10% of the NHS's budget goes towards treating diabetes. That's a huge amount of money. It's not just a problem for sufferers - its everyone elses problem too.

    In my view*, government has two main jobs: promoting our happiness, and curbing our excesses. This is firmly within those remits, albeit trading short term for long term happiness.

    You probably wouldn't say firearms/crack cocaine/embezzling shouldn't be illegal just because some people can't control themselves, I hope? This is much like that - it just seems harmless because you're used to it being there.

    People can still buy crisps and pizza. They just won't get a discount on over-indulging anymore

    *actually, Bertrand Russell's view.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    It’s cute you think this will tackle obesity and diabetes. People will eat the same amount it’ll just cost everybody more money. Smoking/drinking related illness probably costs the NHS more why not just put more restrictions on that too while they’re at it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    They do put restrictions on smoking and drinking - they outlawed deals on those years ago. Tobacco is about 50x the price it costs to manufacture because of taxes, and guess what? There's millions fewer smokers now than there were in the 1900's! People who don't drink, or who drink much more rarely, are a much higher number than they used to be too.

    Personally though, I do think tobacco should be completely illegal. Maybe nicotine products too, though they do help people with ADD self-regulate

    EDIT You are right that the costs of alcohol to the NHS is still pretty huge though - about £5bn a year and 10,000 deaths, not to speak of all the other costs. Some good stats here: https://britishlivertrust.org.uk/27-4-billion-cost-of-alcohol-harm-in-england-every-year/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago* (9 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Funny you say that because there’s been a huge increase in kids SMOKING vapes. These “restrictions” haven’t actually done anything to curb that behaviour. Why hasn’t imposing restrictions improved the situation here? Vapes have been available from around 2013 and I imagine are included in most legislation relating to tobacco products. Maybe education and proper parenting are the answer not just blanket banning BOGOF offers. This would be a greater public service than stopping reasonably healthy people from saving a few quid bulk buying treats for themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There’s literally a whole section on electronic cigarettes (part 6 since I’m assuming you didn’t read it). So it looks like there is regulation and it hasn’t worked as the kids are hooked on vapes. Many of these regulations also apply to vapes for example the health warnings on every package.

    Regulations for vapes is also becoming more aligned with cigarettes over time. So from 2013 when they were introduced the increased regulation from the alignment with regulation on tobacco products hasn’t worked.

    Further steps may curb this but from the data that is published on the number of those under 18 vaping I highly doubt it.

    But thanks for elaborating :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Unless you want to do something dystopian like requiring a parenthood licence before people are allowed to have children and then force them to keep it renewed by attending regular parenthood classes, you can't force people to receive education on how to be better parents. The state doesn't have many levers to pull that don't involve taking people's children away. Making harmful products less appealing by preventing retailers promoting them is a much better balance of good effect against oppression. The kind of deal being restricted here is something supermarkets do because it manipulates people into buying things they otherwise wouldn't. It's not like every time you see a BOGOF sale in a shop it's because they're overstocked and are trying to clear things before they go past their sell-by date. If that's not happening, then the only rational reason for supermarkets to have these deals is to manipulate their customers, and it's not oppressive for a government to prevent multi-billion pound companies from manipulating its citizens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I agree it’s used to manipulate but that’s the nature of a free market. I Shouldn’t have my choices taken away by the government and be burdened by the other recent changes just because some people have no self control or can’t effectively police what their kid does online.

    Parenthood license also sounds like a great idea and I would be super on board with it. Bad parenting is often a vicious cycle that can destroy families over multiple generations. A license would be a preventative measure to stop children’s lives being ruined by unfit parents. Much like the porn ban stopping people from becoming porn obsessed psychos or stopping me from becoming obese because of my donut addiction.

    These rules for the “greater good” are quite frankly a bit shit..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Unless you're a Ferengi or Ayn Rand, a free market shouldn't allow agents within the market to manipulate each other, as that inhibits trades being done solely based on what gives the best value for the least currency, making the market less free. The regulation here isn't taking away a choice you want to have as supermarkets that run BOGOF offers just set the unit price to the cost of two units, so your choice is between paying for two things and getting two things or paying for two things and only getting one. Effectively, your choice to just buy one thing at a fair price is taken away by supermarkets, and it's dressed up to make it look like you're getting a bargain when you pay a fair price for two things and get two things.

    A parenthood licence is a really common trope in dystopian fiction because it's fundamentally the most authoritarian thing a state could do short of mind control. If you don't trust a government to decide whether or not there should be BOGOF offers on crisps, you absolutely shouldn't trust them to decide who gets to have children. For most of the twentieth century, the British government was actively trying to suppress minority political opinions like it being acceptable for people to be homosexual or anti-pollution. If they'd been deciding what the requirements were to get a parenthood licence, they'd absolutely have made people agree to teach their children that it wasn't okay to be gay etc..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I am crazy but I haven’t seen a bogof in years?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Is this not a good change or am i missing something?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's a good change. What would be even better is promoting 2 for 1 deals on fruit, veg, nuts, seeds, pulses and grains. Arguably meat too, though with the environmental impact of the industry that's harder to justify

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    So if I want one lettuce which only has a short shelf life, but there is a buy one get one free deal, I'd be stupid not to pick up two. Because I can only eat one lettuce before it goes bad, the second lettuce will be binned before its even started. All buy one get one free deals should be banned - if you want us to buy more of a product, halve the price!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    You would be stupid to pick up two if you knew you were going to throw one away. Food waste is not a good thing.

    But - as odd as this might seem - you could offer the second lettuce to someone else. Either someone else leaving the store, a friend/neighbor or work colleague. Yes I know it's unusual to stand up in the office and say "does anyone want a free lettuce?" but it's not only harmless, its positive!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    More nanny state shite, so glad I can say I did not vote for this Tory wanker.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It is so frustrating to see Labour being compared to Tories. Frankly it just shows when someone hasn't been looking at the news.

    • nationalising trains
    • (sort of) nationalising steel
    • nationalising a part of our energy sector
    • bringing the NHS back under direct public control
    • ending various tax-dodging loopholes, such as the IHT for farmers and non-dom taxes
    • windfall tax on energy companies
    • charging VAT on private schooling
    • expanding free childcare
    • restarting SureStart (albeit under a different name)
    • expanding free school meals
    • expanding school breakfast clubs
    • guaranteeing jobs for young people (announced this morning)
    • big increases to the minimum wage, especially for the youngest
    • expansion of workers rights
    • expansion of renters rights
    • big increase in infrastructure investment, particularly for renewables
    • actually engaging with France over surging illegal immigration rather than spending billions on a Rwanda plan that won't work and would send people somewhere we know to be unsafe

    That's just off the top of my head.

    Not agreeing with XYX Labour action is fine. You will never ever have a government you universally agree with. But to look at the current lot and say they're the same as the Tories is simply uninformed.

    I can't believe Reform have been having such an easy time pushing such a blatantly false narrative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    nationalising trains

    Sorry, but no, they haven't. Some franchies expired and returned to state ownership, which was a Tory policy and several TOC's reverted under them.

    sort of) nationalising steel

    No they haven't.

    nationalising a part of our energy sector

    Again, no they haven't, GB Energy whatever the fuck it actually is, is not nationalising energy.

    If they had actually done those things, then yes they might be in the win column.

    bringing the NHS back under direct public control

    Total vague nonsense, how's outcomes doing? No real change?

    ending various tax-dodging loopholes, such as the IHT for farmers and non-dom taxes

    They chickened out on that and for me, it's not nearly enough and exactly shows the problem with Keir Starmer and his boring pussy arsed government. IHT should be like 100% over a certain amount, there should be no generational wealth. He should be making that case and it would certainly set him apart from Farage and company.

    windfall tax on energy companies

    Probably the first one we can unambiguously say 'ok' on.... Though of course, not really because the energy windfall tax was a Tory policy from 2022 and all they did was increase the rate from 35% to 38%.

    I really cannot be arsed to go through the rest, but suffice to say.

    Bullshit mate.

  • source
  • parent