RollingJ Â Â 1,908 #13 Posted December 28, 2020 Damn near everything, @nikki-red, and will achieve very little, unless, as I was about to post, you have a dietician on your shoulder when you go shopping/cook. Â Still smacks of 'nanny-state' to me, and a further attempt to introduce Big Brother via the back door. Mind you, I do notice your link is the Daily Mail, and I stopped reading that 'newspaper' when Sir David English retired as editor and they hired his replacement from was it the 'Daily Star', or some such rag. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   862 #14 Posted December 28, 2020 Eat the rich  as usual in these ideas its the poorest who get targeted and the rich can afford to get fat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
RollingJ   1,908 #15 Posted December 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, melthebell said: Eat the rich  as usual in these ideas its the poorest who get targeted and the rich can afford to get fat. I see a lot of 'fat' theoretically 'poor' people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Annie Bynnol   596 #16 Posted December 28, 2020 People increase profit from making a food or drink deliberately high in fat, salt and sugar. They are not cheaper-there is no profit in making cheap products. They never existed before - they are seen as investment vehicles. They sometimes replace a 'healthier' option - eg natural yogurt rarely available in portion size. They are designed to cause addiction- sugar and fat have addictive qualities. They are designed to increase the quantity consumed- eg multi packs, family size etc.  They oppose every attempt to offer usable and comparable information at the point of sale. They collude with retailers and political parties (and therefore Governments) to prevent/slow down what the public demand which is food that is produced for their consumption and not adulterated for the purpose of money making.  The increasing profits are shared by the farmers, additive producers, manufacturers, retailers and Governments whose political clout and financial resources dwarf those of the NHS and charities who see first hand what increasing addiction and availability to  foods high in fat, salt and sugar cause. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Pettytom   1 #17 Posted December 28, 2020 I can’t see any problem in legislating to stop the discounting of unhealthy foods. It makes perfect sense and we will all benefit from living in a healthier population.  If it gets a few Telegraph readers hot under the collar at the same time, it’s a double winner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bassett one   440 #18 Posted December 28, 2020 the popular coca /cola is up 50p per bottle when you choose as part of a chicken deal,because of sugar tax,now they want to tell us what to eat as well as what we drink,its all nanny state,its our body we choose ,what we wish for,we didnt have obesity when we didnt have takeaways,thats the main problem,i see deliverys galore to nearly every house on our street,as its easy for everyone,there used to be loads of exercise at schools,not now,everone on computors,you used to see kids galore outside xmas day,not now ,there indoors with there new machines,its more than just bogoff offers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Janus   28 #19 Posted December 28, 2020 Ah yes that old chestnut the nanny state.  A few years ago Carlsburg special brew was 9% strength. I see that it is 7.5% now. Where one can would 'hit the spot' and satisfy, won't some aficionados simply now have 2 cans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
catmiss   12 #20 Posted December 28, 2020 (edited) I can see the reasoning behind behind banning BOGOF unhealthy foods.  Perhaps fresh fruit and veg could be made more appealing and affordable by BOGOF, Aldi style weekly special offers or the Xmas pricing veg wars  becoming the norm as supermarket loss leaders, perhaps accompanied by cooking and serving suggestions Edited December 28, 2020 by catmiss Typo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
catmiss   12 #21 Posted December 28, 2020 5 hours ago, Janus said: Ah yes that old chestnut the nanny state.  A few years ago Carlsburg special brew was 9% strength. I see that it is 7.5% now. Where one can would 'hit the spot' and satisfy, won't some aficionados simply now have 2 cans. On that premise if they reduce the potency of Frosty Jack 3 litres I’ll be   in the loo all night 😧 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Dardandec   32 #22 Posted December 28, 2020 6 hours ago, Janus said: Ah yes that old chestnut the nanny state.  A few years ago Carlsburg special brew was 9% strength. I see that it is 7.5% now. Where one can would 'hit the spot' and satisfy, won't some aficionados simply now have 2 cans. This has been going on for years. Stella Artois in the 90's was 5.2%, possibly in the noughties too, Cant remember exactly, it is 4.8% now. I suspect they pay less tax on it if it is lower strength, other than pressure from governments also, maybe? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ivan edake   13 #23 Posted January 3, 2021 On 28/12/2020 at 10:59, zach said: I would imagine the shops will just play a new game with the mindless rule makers. Instead of BOGOF, they would simply make it something like: Buy one for £1 or two for £1.05. The second being only 5p but gets round the silly BOGOF rule. Holland and Barrett already do this with therr 99pence sale. You buy one item at full price and another of the same for 99 pence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ivan edake   13 #24 Posted January 3, 2021 On 28/12/2020 at 10:04, buddysbuddy said: I suppose one way round this would be to put product on at half price,-then you could buy one or two as you wish.  I've always said that it should be done like this anyway, sometimes people don't really want two but they buy the BOGOF offer and then one gets wasted. What really bugs me is the shops that have offers something like: £5 each,buy 4 for £8. These items really should be priced at £2 each. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...