Gov. even ignores retailers. @sainsburys 'We need compulsory and measured targets...nothing less will work' #obesity https://t.co/JAW39EhhND— Action On Sugar (@actiononsugar) August 19, 2016
This is because the CEO of Sainsbury's has written a letter to The Times asking the government to bring in legal restrictions on the use of salt, sugar and fat 'across the whole food and drink industry'. It's a staggering thing to request and is a classic example of industry trying to use regulation to get an advantage at the expense of the public. Or maybe he knows it won't happen and is counting on some good publicity. Either way, I hope his business tanks and he gets thrown out on his ear.
Elsewhere, I've written an article for the Express about the cry babies of the nanny state industry and their ridiculous demands. In it, I say...
A glance at the policies rejected by the Government demonstrates sound judgment from the Prime Minister. The health lobby wanted a ban on “junk food” advertising before the watershed. Alas, “junk food” is a campaigning term with no scientific definition.
The nearest equivalent is food that is high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) but this covers a much broader range of products than people realise. It includes chocolate, crisps and burgers of course but it also includes orange juice, cheese, bacon, nuts and milk.
Call me a free market fundamentalist if you must but I don’t think these products are such a threat that they can only appear on television after dark.
Illustrating this point is an excellent video courtesy of Guido showing dozens of reasons why Jamie Oliver's adverts for, er, Sainsbury's would be banned if the zealots got their way. Highly recommended.
They know not what they do, the irresponsible fools.
No comments:
Post a Comment