Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on June 15, 2015, 06:21:04 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article about food wastage in the US.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/05/14/us/cnn-heroes-lee/index.html
**************************************************************************
One in six Americans struggles with food insecurity. Yet in the United States, 40% of food goes to waste.
"Just the sheer amount of food that's being wasted is enough to eradicate hunger," Lee said.
After graduating two years ago, Lee decided to help take the concept of rescuing food off campus. Together with fellow NYU alum Louisa Chen, he co-founded Rescuing Leftover Cuisine. The nonprofit picks up fresh food that would otherwise go to waste from New York City restaurants and gets it to people in need.
Seven days a week, the organization engages volunteers to pick up and deliver any amount of food, no matter how small. Lee says operating on foot makes the group highly efficient.
So far, the group has rescued 100,000 pounds of food and delivered it to homeless shelters and food kitchens. Seeing the impact he was making, Lee gave up his finance job at J.P. Morgan last year to focus on his nonprofit full time.
*****************************************************************************
I don't know how serious the food wastage problem is in the UK...perhaps not as bad as America.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
It's good to see altruism alive and flourishing ... particularly good in the young in this consumer age.
-
I don't know how serious the food wastage problem is in the UK...perhaps not as bad as America.
If there is food waste in a country where people are going hungry its a world wide problem.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28139586
-
I don't know how serious the food wastage problem is in the UK...perhaps not as bad as America.
If there is food waste in a country where people are going hungry its a world wide problem.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28139586
Well yes, it is, but this is quickly perishable food, so any help can only be applied locally.
-
It's only a few weeks since I posted a link to an article relating how French supermarkets are required by law to pass on unsold food to the needy. Some supermarkets here do so, but it's a voluntary, goodwill gesture and not a case of legal compulsion, which is why so few do it.
-
What point are you trying to make Sriram? Considering the fact that the United Nations Development Program has stated that India wastes 40% of it's food every year. All the Wheat Australia produces is the same amount INDIA wastes per year. Perhaps deal with your waste before pointing your finger at my friends to the south.
-
It's food wastage by the obese, who eat far more than they need. According to BBC News this lunch, there are more obese people on Earth than there are starving people.
-
That doesn't actually follow. This is about the wastage of food full stop, not obesity - I once heard somewhere of somebody who said that if food waste bothers you, never, ever, ever, ever, ever get a job in catering or that involves cooking for the general public in any way, because the amount of wasted food defies belief.
-
Indeed, I would have thought the obese might be less likely to waste food.
-
That doesn't actually follow. This is about the wastage of food full stop, not obesity - I once heard somewhere of somebody who said that if food waste bothers you, never, ever, ever, ever, ever get a job in catering or that involves cooking for the general public in any way, because the amount of wasted food defies belief.
But the obese eat more than their share, and, obviously more than they need, so it is, in effect, wasted. If they didn't, and didn't in the future, it might still be possible to somehow devise the means to channel that food to the needy
-
Surely it is simpler to make sure that we use the tons and tons of food that is thrown away while still edible rather than start trying to nick chips from people you think are fat?
-
Surely it is simpler to make sure that we use the tons and tons of food that is thrown away while still edible rather than start trying to nick chips from people you think are fat?
We ought to do something about that wastage, which is a disgrace, I agree. But why not also do more to encourage people not to eat so much, which is also wasting food?
-
Surely it is simpler to make sure that we use the tons and tons of food that is thrown away while still edible rather than start trying to nick chips from people you think are fat?
We ought to do something about that wastage, which is a disgrace, I agree. But why not also do more to encourage people not to eat so much, which is also wasting food?
They are not an either/or, but I don't think arguing to people that they are wasting food by eating it is either a logical or a feasible argument.
-
If it's being eaten it's not being wasted.
There's already more than enough food in the world to feed everyone - the problem isn't one of scarcity but imbalance, of getting the food to where it needs to be. Taking that final pasty off Eamonn Holmes isn't going to help anybody.
-
Surely it is simpler to make sure that we use the tons and tons of food that is thrown away while still edible rather than start trying to nick chips from people you think are fat?
We ought to do something about that wastage, which is a disgrace, I agree. But why not also do more to encourage people not to eat so much, which is also wasting food?
They are not an either/or, but I don't think arguing to people that they are wasting food by eating it is either a logical or a feasible argument.
Obese people need to understand that the food they eat, which they don't need, because they have already had enough, and are doing themselves no good anyway, is simply being wasted on them.
-
I don't get this at all. It's not being wasted. You're making a moral judgement on people you regard as overweight but without saying how this food is being wasted. It isn't. Food that goes from supermarket to fridge to dustbin without passing through an alimentary canal in the interim is food that's wasted - bad enough for fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta etc., downright inuquitous if it's meat or fish. The concept of waste only has traction because the food that ends up in the bin could have been eaten by somebody who would have been grateful for it - if we had legislation in place such as exists in France there would be no need to have food banks in one of the richest nations on the planet.
-
I don't get this at all. It's not being wasted. You're making a moral judgement on people you regard as overweight but without saying how this food is being wasted. It isn't. Food that goes from supermarket to fridge to dustbin without passing through an alimentary canal in the interim is food that's wasted - bad enough for fruit, vegetables, rice, pasta etc., downright inuquitous if it's meat or fish. The concept of waste only has traction because the food that ends up in the bin could have been eaten by somebody who would have been grateful for it - if we had legislation in place such as exists in France there would be no need to have food banks in one of the richest nations on the planet.
The extra food they eat is wasted by the obese because they need never have bought it in the first place: they not only did not need it, but it was not doing them any good anyway. Leave it to be used by somebody who doesn't abuse the privilege of having all they want available, and more.
-
The extra food they eat is wasted by the obese because they need never have bought it in the first place: they not only did not need it, but it was not doing them any good anyway.
I would sooner treat competent consenting adults as the judge of what's good for them. You're a whisker away from telling people what food they can and can't buy.
Leave it to be used by somebody who doesn't abuse the privilege of having all they want available, and more.
Do you seriously believe that if Robbie Coltrane, while pushing his trolley around Morrisons, picks up a 12-pack of crisps and then thinks "No, better not" and puts it back, it'll go to the hungry?
-
The extra food they eat is wasted by the obese because they need never have bought it in the first place: they not only did not need it, but it was not doing them any good anyway.
I would sooner treat competent consenting adults as the judge of what's good for them. You're a whisker away from telling people what food they can and can't buy.
Leave it to be used by somebody who doesn't abuse the privilege of having all they want available, and more.
Do you seriously believe that if Robbie Coltrane, while pushing his trolley around Morrisons, picks up a 12-pack of crisps and then thinks "No, better not" and puts it back, it'll go to the hungry?
I'm not telling people what's good for them; but if they are too selfish in their eating habits, then it needs pointing out. There are Government incentives on what is good and not good: sugar, salt fatty foods, etc. Do you think that is telling people what they can and can't eat? Or is it giving them advice on what is healthy, when clearly, the obese need some guidance.
If Robbie Coltrane does pick up a 12- pack of crisps, then clearly he doesn't put it back. Perhaps he needs a little advice, or persuading. Obesity, and the mis-use of our food supplies, is a ticking time-bomb.
-
I'm not telling people what's good for them; but if they are too selfish in their eating habits, then it needs pointing out. There are Government incentives on what is good and not good: sugar, salt fatty foods, etc. Do you think that is telling people what they can and can't eat? Or is it giving them advice on what is healthy, when clearly, the obese need some guidance.
It's nannyism of the kind that now has to put drinkaware.co.uk even on a TV advert for a bottle of Lambrini. It's the infantilisation of adults, treating grown-ups as children who can't make their own decisions.
If Robbie Coltrane does pick up a 12- pack of crisps, then clearly he doesn't put it back. Perhaps he needs a little advice, or persuading. Obesity, and the mis-use of our food supplies, is a ticking time-bomb.
"Persuading"? What if he's not interested in being persuaded?
-
I'm not telling people what's good for them; but if they are too selfish in their eating habits, then it needs pointing out. There are Government incentives on what is good and not good: sugar, salt fatty foods, etc. Do you think that is telling people what they can and can't eat? Or is it giving them advice on what is healthy, when clearly, the obese need some guidance.
It's nannyism of the kind that now has to put drinkaware.co.uk even on a TV advert for a bottle of Lambrini. It's the infantilisation of adults, treating grown-ups as children who can't make their own decisions.
If Robbie Coltrane does pick up a 12- pack of crisps, then clearly he doesn't put it back. Perhaps he needs a little advice, or persuading. Obesity, and the mis-use of our food supplies, is a ticking time-bomb.
"Persuading"? What if he's not interested in being persuaded?
What on earth is wrong with trying to persuade people to eat healthily to increase their chances of a healthier and longer life? These same arguments you propound about so-called nannyism were used over the issues of seat belts and crash helmets . Once it was realised they were life-saving decisions, people accepted them. Obesity is a life-threatening condition, and needs to be addressed. If the Government ignored this growing problem (on pun intended), people would bleat that they ought to do something.
Obesity is serious. Research has shown that obese people are at higher risk for developing heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, high blood pressure, stroke, and sleeping and breathing problems among other conditions. Some of these are the leading causes of death. Shouldn't we be trying to effect change in how much we eat, then?
-
What on earth is wrong with trying to persuade people to eat healthily to increase their chances of a healthier and longer life? These same arguments you propound about so-called nannyism were used over the issues of seat belts and crash helmets . Once it was realised they were life-saving decisions, people accepted them. Obesity is a life-threatening condition, and needs to be addressed. If the Government ignored this growing problem (on pun intended), people would bleat that they ought to do something.
Obesity is serious. Research has shown that obese people are at higher risk for developing heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, high blood pressure, stroke, and sleeping and breathing problems among other conditions. Some of these are the leading causes of death. Shouldn't we be trying to effect change in how much we eat, then?
No. Regarding your example of crash helmets and seatbelts, the classic liberal/John Stuart Milli-ian view would be that it is wrong to impose these by threat of legal penalties because the individual is sovereign and owns himself, which grants him the right to endanger his own life should he so wish. It may not be wise, and other people may find it foolish and may try to change his mind, but they have no power to compel him since potentially endangering one's own life is a self-directed action as opposed to an other-directed action. This is why, for instance, the state has a right to impose legal penalties on drink driving (drink half a bottle of vodka and get behind the wheel and you can plough into a full bus queue of people, killing all of them) but on the classic liberal view can't demand that you buckle up while doing it.
A further point is that these things are hopelessly inconsistent; people are expected by law to wear a seatbelt or a crash helmet, yet fairly widespread and at times incredibly dangerous activities - playing rugby; riding horses; sky diving; motor racing; boxing - are freely permitted.
Of course most of these things are big business and make people a very great deal of money indeed, so that explains that. It also explains why alcohol and tobacco are legal and cannabis isn't.
-
What on earth is wrong with trying to persuade people to eat healthily to increase their chances of a healthier and longer life? These same arguments you propound about so-called nannyism were used over the issues of seat belts and crash helmets . Once it was realised they were life-saving decisions, people accepted them. Obesity is a life-threatening condition, and needs to be addressed. If the Government ignored this growing problem (on pun intended), people would bleat that they ought to do something.
Obesity is serious. Research has shown that obese people are at higher risk for developing heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers, high blood pressure, stroke, and sleeping and breathing problems among other conditions. Some of these are the leading causes of death. Shouldn't we be trying to effect change in how much we eat, then?
No. Regarding your example of crash helmets and seatbelts, the classic liberal/John Stuart Milli-ian view would be that it is wrong to impose these by threat of legal penalties because the individual is sovereign and owns himself, which grants him the right to endanger his own life should he so wish. It may not be wise, and other people may find it foolish and may try to change his mind, but they have no power to compel him since potentially endangering one's own life is a self-directed action as opposed to an other-directed action. This is why, for instance, the state has a right to impose legal penalties on drink driving (drink half a bottle of vodka and get behind the wheel and you can plough into a full bus queue of people, killing all of them) but on the classic liberal view can't demand that you buckle up while doing it.
A further point is that these things are hopelessly inconsistent; people are expected by law to wear a seatbelt or a crash helmet, yet fairly widespread and at times incredibly dangerous activities - playing rugby; riding horses; sky diving; motor racing; boxing - are freely permitted.
Of course most of these things are big business and make people a very great deal of money indeed, so that explains that. It also explains why alcohol and tobacco are legal and cannabis isn't
You are widening the discussion too broadly. We are discussing obesity, and I am saying that it is a serious, very serious, problem that only the resources of a Government can adequately address. I am not, and would not, suggest enforcement in any way by the use of laws: I am talking of persuasion. Surely you agree that people ought to have it pointed out to them that too much eating, and too much eating of the wrong things, is harmful in the extreme?
-
People already have that sort of information in abundance though. You can't escape it. It's on every packet and tin, on every bottle of the weakest pseudo plonk in existence, it's in the papers every other day and just to really ram it down your throat (no pun intended) it also features regularly in TV adverts. If the thesis that we're suffering an obesity crisis and liver damage epidemic is true, people clearly aren't taking any notice. Since you can't miss the finger wagging, people have to be ignoring it.
Perhaps people are just sick and tired of being lectured.
P.S. We weren't actually discussing obesity but food wastage - you introduced obesity which still has nothing to do with the OP as far as I can see.
-
People already have that sort of information in abundance though. You can't escape it. It's on every packet and tin, on every bottle of the weakest pseudo plonk in existence, it's in the papers every other day and just to really ram it down your throat (no pun intended) it also features regularly in TV adverts. If the thesis that we're suffering an obesity crisis and liver damage epidemic is true, people clearly aren't taking any notice. Since you can't miss the finger wagging, people have to be ignoring it.
Perhaps people are just sick and tired of being lectured.
P.S. We weren't actually discussing obesity but food wastage - you introduced obesity which still has nothing to do with the OP as far as I can see.
How many people read what's on the tin/package? You can hardly see it for a start, and even less understand it. Sometimes it is necessary to go on and on about a thing, till the penny drops. For many, despite the deathly effect it has, smoking as a dangerous habit, has not hit home.
I realise the OP is about wastage, but my point is, as I have said, obese people are wasting food, by eating what they do not need, quite apart from the health considerations.
-
How many people read what's on the tin/package? You can hardly see it for a start, and even less understand it. Sometimes it is necessary to go on and on about a thing, till the penny drops. For many, despite the deathly effect it has, smoking as a dangerous habit, has not hit home.
Aren't you making my point for me?
-
How many people read what's on the tin/package? You can hardly see it for a start, and even less understand it. Sometimes it is necessary to go on and on about a thing, till the penny drops. For many, despite the deathly effect it has, smoking as a dangerous habit, has not hit home.
Aren't you making my point for me?
If I am, then we are actually reading from the same hymn sheet! 8)
-
I doubt it - my point is that the information about fat/sugar/salt/smoking/drinking is not only readily available but inescapable, yet according to some we're facing the decline and fall of Western civilisation not through invasion from without but from smoky bacon crisps and cheap vodka from Lidl. People aren't listening.
-
I doubt it - my point is that the information about fat/sugar/salt/smoking/drinking is not only readily available but inescapable, yet according to some we're facing the decline and fall of Western civilisation not through invasion from without but from smoky bacon crisps and cheap vodka from Lidl. People aren't listening.
Sorry, I forgot, you don't read from hymn sheets. ;)
No, we are not facing the declone of Western Civilisation, at least not from obesity; but we are facing a hugely significant decline in the Nation's health.
-
And yet, despite the Attack of the Liver-Damaged Lardarses, life expectancy rises year on year, we have an aging population (more people over 85 than there are under 16) and a constantly climbing population.
-
And yet, despite the Attack of the Liver-Damaged Lardarses, life expectancy rises year on year, we have an aging population (more people over 85 than there are under 16) and a constantly climbing population.
But what sort of life style, when you have to roll over on the bed to get your socks on? Actually, at the present rate, there will be more deaths from obesity then cancer before long. It doesn;t necessarily mean you die sooner, but you die from a preventable cause.
Press Association
Thursday 20 November 2014,
"Obesity is a greater burden on the UK’s economy than armed violence, war and terrorism, costing the country nearly £47bn a year, a report has found.
The study, commissioned by consultancy firm McKinsey and Company, reveals obesity has the second-largest economic impact on the UK behind smoking, generating an annual loss equivalent to 3% of GDP."
It's a waste of money as well as food!
-
And yet, despite the Attack of the Liver-Damaged Lardarses, life expectancy rises year on year, we have an aging population (more people over 85 than there are under 16) and a constantly climbing population.
But what sort of life style, when you have to roll over on the bed to get your socks on? Actually, at the present rate, there will be more deaths from obesity then cancer before long. It doesn;t necessarily mean you die sooner, but you die from a preventable cause.
Press Association
Thursday 20 November 2014,
"Obesity is a greater burden on the UK’s economy than armed violence, war and terrorism, costing the country nearly £47bn a year, a report has found.
The study, commissioned by consultancy firm McKinsey and Company, reveals obesity has the second-largest economic impact on the UK behind smoking, generating an annual loss equivalent to 3% of GDP."
It's a waste of money as well as food!
Those with unhealthy lifestyles have a cheaper lifetime cost on the Nhs than those with healthy lifestyles. If we follow your logic any food eaten surplus to nutrition is a waste you are inevitably wasting food.
-
Yes, the same thought occurred to me too - according to Bashers's "logic" people should be on bare subsistence rations, the absolute minimum in terms of energy and nutritional requirements, since even a single calorie above this threshold would be "wasted."
-
I think it's a shame that the issue of food wastage has got mixed up with the issue of obesity here. The solutions, even if you view obesity as food wastage, to that and food being thrown away are different.
-
I am shocked by the amount of food people throw away. :o On bin days the amount of bags some people have in their green food bins is incredible. I abhor wasting food and the only waste which goes into my single bag are peelings, egg shells and used tea bags. I only prepare the food we will eat, leaving anything on the side of the plate (for Lady Manners) has never been acceptable!
-
Yes, the same thought occurred to me too - according to Bashers's "logic" people should be on bare subsistence rations, the absolute minimum in terms of energy and nutritional requirements, since even a single calorie above this threshold would be "wasted."
What about hobbies? Pets? Holidays?
All things that most people do which could be spent on food or wells, where needed.
We all have things we do, where the money could be spent on something else.
Why has bashful targeted only obese people?
Body image and food is already a big problem for some people, I hope bashful Anthony doesn't go round trying to educate unfortunate overweight people around him.
For all he knows those obese people might contribute far more to the starving people than the skinny person he respects more.
We all could take steps to reduce waste, not just scapegoat obese people.
Rose: we could all reduce waste in lots of ways, but this discussion is about food waste: start another thread if you want to expand the discussion.
Shaker: where have I mentioned any such thing as, "people should be on bare subsistence rations."? You are mischievously attributing to me things I have not said. I quite simply say that people who are obese are wasting food by eating, in large quantities, what they do not need, and which is harming them, and very often causing the NHS a lot of money. If you find that hard to accept, I can only assume you are of the obese fraternity and have taken umbrage! ;)
-
I quite simply say that people who are obese ... very often causing the NHS a lot of money.
No unhealthy lifestyle saves the NHS money.
-
I quite simply say that people who are obese ... very often causing the NHS a lot of money.
No unhealthy lifestyle saves the NHS money.
I've posted this already:
Press Association
"Obesity is a greater burden on the UK’s economy than armed violence, war and terrorism, costing the country nearly £47bn a year, a report has found.
The study, commissioned by consultancy firm McKinsey and Company, reveals obesity has the second-largest economic impact on the UK behind smoking, generating an annual loss equivalent to 3% of GDP, according to the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), which produced the report.
It has called for a co-ordinated response from governments, retailers, restaurants and food and drink manufacturers to address what it calls the “global obesity crisis”.
A series of 44 interventions could bring 20% of overweight or obese people in UK back to normal weight within five to 10 years, the report says.
This would save around £16bn a year in the UK, including an annual saving of about £766m in the NHS, according to the study."
-
Nothing to do with the waste of food, though.
-
Nothing to do with the waste of food, though.
It is: over-eating is wasteful, and leads to the huge cost to the NHS because of the resiltant obesity.
-
No, it isn't wasteful. People do not (and should not) live on subsistence rations as you appear to want them to do.
-
No, it isn't wasteful. People do not (and should not) live on subsistence rations as you appear to want them to do.
I repeat: quote where I have said that people should live on subsistence rations? I contend that people should live healthily and eat whatever they need in order to be healthy; over-eating to the point of obesity is what I condemn. What on earth is wrong with that?
-
Primarily, that it's not your concern.
-
Primarily, that it's not your concern.
It's everybody's concern, since the cost of dealing with obesity comes out of the already stretched resources of the NHS. Try saying "it's not your concern" to a doctor.
-
It's nobody else's concern as to the choices they make, especially when - as you are attempting to do - you are trying to erect an argument on so specious and fatuous and utterly wrong-headed a point as obesity equalling wastage.
-
"Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it!!" Proverbs 25:16
-
It's nobody else's concern as to the choices they make, especially when - as you are attempting to do - you are trying to erect an argument on so specious and fatuous and utterly wrong-headed a point as obesity equalling wastage.
It is the concern of others when they have to pay to treat the wrong choices others make; and to the tune of tens of millionsof pounds What planet are you on?
-
Obese people are eating too much: that's why they are obese!
Obese people need to understand that the food they eat, which they don't need, because they have already had enough, and are doing themselves no good anyway, is simply being wasted on them.
Stop blaming obese people.
I am pointing out the damage they do to themselves, and the fact that others have to pick up the bill.
You spend money on your dog don't you? Buy a pint down the pub? Spend money going on holiday?, which could be spent getting food to starving people.
Who said anything about starving people? Waste is waste, whatever is done with the food. I don't drink, and haven't been on a holiday in years; not that it's relevant to the discussion. My dog has to eat to live: he is not obese. Would you have me starve him, then? Silly.
Obese people are no more at fault than the rest of us, you can just see theirs around their middle.
Rubbish! A very silly comment. If they are obese, then they are not like the rest of us, are they?
It's visible, like being black.
Yes: so what?
But they are no more to blame than anyone else and you need to stop victimising obese people.
Pointing out they are wrong is not victimising them.. Again, a silly comment. I suppose medical opinion, which criticises the obese is victimisation? Why is there Government concern about the obesity problem? It strikes me you are in total ignorance of the facts.. I suggest you do a little reading up. Again, silly!
-
I am pointing out the damage they do to themselves
Which they are entitled to do.
and the fact that others have to pick up the bill.
Why others? Aren't the obese taxpayers? They're consumers by definition.
You spend money on your dog don't you? Buy a pint down the pub? Spend money going on holiday?, which could be spent getting food to starving people.
I don't drink
Explains a lot ::)
-
I am pointing out the damage they do to themselves
Which they are entitled to do.
and the fact that others have to pick up the bill.
Why others? Aren't the obese taxpayers? They're consumers by definition.
You spend money on your dog don't you? Buy a pint down the pub? Spend money going on holiday?, which could be spent getting food to starving people.
I don't drink
Explains a lot ::)
We are entitled to commit self-harm; and then go to A&E for treatment. But it's hardly acceptable, or moral.
Do I assume you don't drink? If so, that would also explain a lot. ;)
-
Do I assume you don't drink? If so, that would also explain a lot. ;)
You would be wrong in your assumption. I do drink, but only on a couple of occasions: when I'm thirsty and when I'm not.
-
Do I assume you don't drink? If so, that would also explain a lot. ;)
You would be wrong in your assumption. I do drink, but only on a couple of occasions: when I'm thirsty and when I'm not.
I'm thinking you are not thirsty often... ;)
-
I quite simply say that people who are obese ... very often causing the NHS a lot of money.
No unhealthy lifestyle saves the NHS money.
I've posted this already:
Press Association
"Obesity is a greater burden on the UK’s economy than armed violence, war and terrorism, costing the country nearly £47bn a year, a report has found.
The study, commissioned by consultancy firm McKinsey and Company, reveals obesity has the second-largest economic impact on the UK behind smoking, generating an annual loss equivalent to 3% of GDP, according to the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), which produced the report.
It has called for a co-ordinated response from governments, retailers, restaurants and food and drink manufacturers to address what it calls the “global obesity crisis”.
A series of 44 interventions could bring 20% of overweight or obese people in UK back to normal weight within five to 10 years, the report says.
This would save around £16bn a year in the UK, including an annual saving of about £766m in the NHS, according to the study."
That doesn't look at opportunity cost.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
"Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures."
-
I quite simply say that people who are obese ... very often causing the NHS a lot of money.
No unhealthy lifestyle saves the NHS money.
I've posted this already:
Press Association
"Obesity is a greater burden on the UK’s economy than armed violence, war and terrorism, costing the country nearly £47bn a year, a report has found.
The study, commissioned by consultancy firm McKinsey and Company, reveals obesity has the second-largest economic impact on the UK behind smoking, generating an annual loss equivalent to 3% of GDP, according to the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), which produced the report.
It has called for a co-ordinated response from governments, retailers, restaurants and food and drink manufacturers to address what it calls the “global obesity crisis”.
A series of 44 interventions could bring 20% of overweight or obese people in UK back to normal weight within five to 10 years, the report says.
This would save around £16bn a year in the UK, including an annual saving of about £766m in the NHS, according to the study."
That doesn't look at opportunity cost.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
"Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing he
I think that is probably very much a moot point: but it doesn't address the fact that obesity is an extremely serious health problem
-
I think that is probably very much a moot point: but it doesn't address the fact that obesity is an extremely serious health problem
Agree, I do wonder why you made the point that you know think is moot?
-
I think that is probably very much a moot point: but it doesn't address the fact that obesity is an extremely serious health problem
Agree, I do wonder why you made the point that you know think is moot?
Any debate is open to discussion: sometimes one side of the argument is palpably wrong, however. The treatment of obesity is a drain on NHS resources, all the more reprehensible because it is very much avoidable.
-
I think that is probably very much a moot point: but it doesn't address the fact that obesity is an extremely serious health problem
Agree, I do wonder why you made the point that you know think is moot?
Any debate is open to discussion: sometimes one side of the argument is palpably wrong, however. The treatment of obesity is a drain on NHS resources, all the more reprehensible because it is very much avoidable.
Its not a drain read the report I linked, your making a point that is factually incorrect and wrong.
-
I think that is probably very much a moot point: but it doesn't address the fact that obesity is an extremely serious health problem
Agree, I do wonder why you made the point that you know think is moot?
Any debate is open to discussion: sometimes one side of the argument is palpably wrong, however. The treatment of obesity is a drain on NHS resources, all the more reprehensible because it is very much avoidable.
Its not a drain read the report I linked, your making a point that is factually incorrect and wrong.
This is by the man at the heart of the NHS, who knows best what is happening:
www.england.nhs.uk/2014/09/17/serious-about-obesity/
Having looked into it further, I withdraw my comment that it is "a moot point." The situation is abundantly clear. The Report you quoted is hopelessly out of date, and clearly, totally inaccurate. Anyone who believes obesity, with its concomitant problems, is not a very expensive crisis, and increasingly, so is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
-
This is by the man at the heart of the NHS, who knows best what is happening:
www.england.nhs.uk/2014/09/17/serious-about-obesity/
Having looked into it further, I withdraw my comment that it is "a moot point." The situation is abundantly clear. The Report you quoted is hopelessly out of date, and clearly, totally inaccurate. Anyone who believes obesity, with its concomitant problems, is not a very expensive crisis, and increasingly, so is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Link you supplied doesn't work, 2008 (as I recall) is not that long ago and I'm unsure how a passage of time would have affected the conclusion it came to anyway.
Do you really want to suggest I live in cloud cuckoo land, I'm quite happy to debate the point with you can we keep it sensible with trading insults.
I think obesity is something that seriously affects peoples health and should be addressed against purely for that reason. If you campaign for it addressed on the basis of cost to NHS then if you are wrong will you change your mind?
-
This is by the man at the heart of the NHS, who knows best what is happening:
www.england.nhs.uk/2014/09/17/serious-about-obesity/
Having looked into it further, I withdraw my comment that it is "a moot point." The situation is abundantly clear. The Report you quoted is hopelessly out of date, and clearly, totally inaccurate. Anyone who believes obesity, with its concomitant problems, is not a very expensive crisis, and increasingly, so is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
.
Link you supplied doesn't work, 2008 (as I recall) is not that long ago and I'm unsure how a passage of time would have affected the conclusion it came to anyway.
Do you really want to suggest I live in cloud cuckoo land, I'm quite happy to debate the point with you can we keep it sensible with trading insults.
I think obesity is something that seriously affects peoples health and should be addressed against purely for that reason. If you campaign for it addressed on the basis of cost to NHS then if you are wrong will you change your mind?
The year is important, because it is only in more recent years that the question of obesity has become crucial, and decent research is taking place.
I am not referring to you personally as living in cloud-cckoo land, but those who do not accept the conclusive evidence available about obesity.
You cannot divorce the health consideration from the monetary cost involved. If there is not a serious challenge to peoples' eating habits, then the NHS will not be able to fund the cost of treatment without cutting back in other areas.
The link works okay for me: try again.
Her's an extract:
"Get serious about obesity or bankrupt the NHS – Simon Stevens
17 September 2014
The health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health, the Chief Executive of NHS England tells the annual conference of Public Health England in Coventry today.
Simon Stevens points to the fact that nearly one-in-five secondary school aged children are obese, as are a quarter of adults – up from just 15 per cent twenty years ago. Unchecked, the result will inevitably be a huge rise in avoidable illness and disability, including many cases of type 2 diabetes which Diabetes UK estimate already costs the NHS around £9 billion a year.
“Obesity is the new smoking, and it represents a slow-motion car crash in terms of avoidable illness and rising health care costs,” Stevens says. “If as a nation we keep piling on the pounds around the waistline, we’ll be piling on the pounds in terms of future taxes needed just to keep the NHS afloat."
-
The year is important, because it is only in more recent years that the question of obesity has become crucial, and decent research is taking place.
I am not referring to you personally as living in cloud-cckoo land, but those who do not accept the conclusive evidence available about obesity.
You cannot divorce the health consideration from the monetary cost involved. If there is not a serious challenge to peoples' eating habits, then the NHS will not be able to fund the cost of treatment without cutting back in other areas.
The link works okay for me: try again.
Her's an extract:
"Get serious about obesity or bankrupt the NHS – Simon Stevens
17 September 2014
The health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health, the Chief Executive of NHS England tells the annual conference of Public Health England in Coventry today.
Simon Stevens points to the fact that nearly one-in-five secondary school aged children are obese, as are a quarter of adults – up from just 15 per cent twenty years ago. Unchecked, the result will inevitably be a huge rise in avoidable illness and disability, including many cases of type 2 diabetes which Diabetes UK estimate already costs the NHS around £9 billion a year.
“Obesity is the new smoking, and it represents a slow-motion car crash in terms of avoidable illness and rising health care costs,” Stevens says. “If as a nation we keep piling on the pounds around the waistline, we’ll be piling on the pounds in terms of future taxes needed just to keep the NHS afloat."
Fair enough will accept your quote and not going to claim I know more than Simon Stevens, however being alive inevitably leads to illness and disability, if you are fat now / die young or slim now / die old the lifetime cost is the same.
What will be next 'being old' is the 'new smoking'.
-
The year is important, because it is only in more recent years that the question of obesity has become crucial, and decent research is taking place.
I am not referring to you personally as living in cloud-cckoo land, but those who do not accept the conclusive evidence available about obesity.
You cannot divorce the health consideration from the monetary cost involved. If there is not a serious challenge to peoples' eating habits, then the NHS will not be able to fund the cost of treatment without cutting back in other areas.
The link works okay for me: try again.
Her's an extract:
"Get serious about obesity or bankrupt the NHS – Simon Stevens
17 September 2014
The health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health, the Chief Executive of NHS England tells the annual conference of Public Health England in Coventry today.
Simon Stevens points to the fact that nearly one-in-five secondary school aged children are obese, as are a quarter of adults – up from just 15 per cent twenty years ago. Unchecked, the result will inevitably be a huge rise in avoidable illness and disability, including many cases of type 2 diabetes which Diabetes UK estimate already costs the NHS around £9 billion a year.
“Obesity is the new smoking, and it represents a slow-motion car crash in terms of avoidable illness and rising health care costs,” Stevens says. “If as a nation we keep piling on the pounds around the waistline, we’ll be piling on the pounds in terms of future taxes needed just to keep the NHS afloat."
Fair enough will accept your quote and not going to claim I know more than Simon Stevens, however being alive inevitably leads to illness and disability, if you are fat now / die young or slim now / die old the lifetime cost is the same.
What will be next 'being old' is the 'new smoking'.
That wouldn't in the least surprise me. There is anecdotal evidence now that the elderly are sometimes given less attention than younger patients. If so, that is almost certainly I think, a result of financial considerations.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40502403/nathan-s-hot-dog-eating-contest-man-eats-72-frankfurters
Food wastage and then some, how awful when people are starving. These, 'eating as much as you can in a given time', competitions should be outlawed as being socially unacceptable, imo.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40502403/nathan-s-hot-dog-eating-contest-man-eats-72-frankfurters
Food wastage and then some, how awful when people are starving. These, 'eating as much as you can in a given time', competitions should be outlawed as being socially unacceptable, imo.
That bit at the end of Braveheart where mad Mel shouts out 'Frrrrrrrreeeeeeeedddddooooooooommmmm', you were just thinking his guts could be made into some tasty sausages.
-
Apart from anything else, people who go in for these competitions must be ruining their health.
-
They could well be. Just like people that play rugby, eat chips, drive cars.
-
... horse riding, skydiving, boxing ...
-
... horse riding, skydiving, boxing ...
....smoking, drinking, ........
-
Not having fun...getting hot under the collar about inconsequential nothingness...
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40502403/nathan-s-hot-dog-eating-contest-man-eats-72-frankfurters
Food wastage and then some, how awful when people are starving. These, 'eating as much as you can in a given time', competitions should be outlawed as being socially unacceptable, imo.
Omg! What's she disapproving of and wanting to ban now?
-
Omg! What's she disapproving of and wanting to ban now?
Who is 'she'? The cat's mother'?
-
Who is 'she'? The cat's mother'?
You are the second person I've known use that phrase in my life. The other was my late nan.
-
You are the second person I've known use that phrase in my life. The other was my late nan.
Obviously, a marvellous woman
-
You are the second person I've known use that phrase in my life. The other was my late nan.
Common usage in the east of Scotland.
-
Common usage in the east of Scotland.
My grandmother was East London born and bred. Of Irish descent though.
-
You are the second person I've known use that phrase in my life. The other was my late nan.
Add my Mum to the list - in fact I would say it's quite a common saying around these parts - Nottinghamshire, that is.
-
You are the second person I've known use that phrase in my life. The other was my late nan.
And common usage in my native East Midlands.
-
I need to get out more.
-
Who is 'she'? The cat's mother'?
I use that phrase from time to time.