Ok it's official. We are all too fat and the Government are going to do something about it right now. Put down your Bacon & Egg Mcmuffin and your caramel latte and pin your overweight ears back: You all have to cut your calories by 100 per day or into the Tank of Shame - to be placed somewhere really central – you will go until you are the weight they think you should be. That'll teach you.
Or at least that's what we think they're saying. Andrew Lansley, the current Health Secretary, has decreed that as a nation, we have to lose 5 billion calories, although no time limit was given on this, so don't anyone go mad and try to lose someone else's quota; there may yet be weigh-ins and reprisals. They may even bring the dreaded 'fat tax' in...
In fairness, he has a point. 60% of adults in this country are overweight or obese. And it's time perhaps that the issue was frankly and thoughtfully addressed. There have been quiet murmurings, tiny changes, but we Britons eat out an awful lot – and not just at high- or even middle-end restaurants: we're talking the snatched breakfast, the mid-afternoon muffin, the box of chicken and chips on the way home. (They all 'count' even if you're not sitting in best bib and tucker at your dining table). But whatever's happening, it's not enough. The message isn't sinking in, the calories are.
Let's look at some of those changes. The concept of calorie counts on menus – some of us think they're a great idea, some claim it would definitely change eating habits, some couldn't give a monkey's because they simply want the right to choose. More and more restaurants are using them, but we can't help the sneaking suspicion the only people who care about it are those who watch their weight like hawks anyway.
Then there's the controversial 'fat tax'. Should there be a tax on companies whose only crime is to sell food people really want to eat? After all, they're not forcing us in at gunpoint – we're freely choosing to buy in our millions every day. Why shoot the messenger? But Denmark has done it – albeit not without protest – and made the decision, rightly or wrongly, that the state knows better than its citizens what's good for them. But in the long run, it may well save hundreds of thousands of lives and a lot of money in the process, so can it be a bad thing?
Experts think that this kind of thing – much like the smoking ban – requires a change in law, but isn't that infringing our most basic of human rights? We have a cornucopia of food available to us - perhaps too much – and isn't it just a little disingenuous not to make the most of it? Or are we just row upon row of little troughing piglets, squealing for more and more and more until our collective greed is satisfied?
The argument isn't going to go away. We are all individually responsible for our own diets and health. We all choose to eat out at whatever establishment fulfils that particular need. But it's time to address where the ultimate responsibility lies: with the businesses, who take our money and give us our choice or with the consumer, whose choices may well be his or her downfall?
What about transferring the tax raised on unhealthy foods to provide tax relief on fruit, veg, nuts, seeds, and all of the healthy foods we should be eating. It might make manufacturers of processed foods use these 'cheaper' foods to bulk out ready meals, and in the supermarkets shoppers might choose them over the more expensive unhealthy products?
For some people to lose 100 calories a day would mean they'd flake out pretty quickly. If you're cycling everywhere for transport and playing a lot of sport it's actually pretty hard work getting all the food you need!!
So, I guess my point is that it may be better to advise people to burn 100 calories more a day. People can still eat all the lovely food they like and restaurateurs are happy for the continued trade.
What about transferring the tax raised on unhealthy foods to provide tax relief on fruit, veg, nuts, seeds, and all of the healthy foods we should be eating. It might make manufacturers of processed foods use these 'cheaper' foods to bulk out ready meals, and in the supermarkets shoppers might choose them over the more expensive unhealthy products?