Unhealthy snacks to be banned from checkouts at supermarkets in England

Supermarkets in England are to be barred from displaying unhealthy food and drinks at checkouts or using them in buy one, get one free offers, as part of a proposed government crackdown on obesity.

The planned restrictions were praised by health campaigners as a “bold first step” in Downing Street’s promised campaign against obesity.

The checkout restrictions will apply to other sales-boosting locations such as the entrances to stores or at the end of aisles. Similar rules will apply for websites, banning sales links to unhealthy foods on places such as homepages, or at checkout or payment pages. Restaurants will no longer be able to offer free refills of sugary drinks.

The restrictions will not come into force until April 2022, and will be subject to a consultation process first.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

Unhealthy snacks to be banned from checkouts at supermarkets in England

Supermarkets in England are to be barred from displaying unhealthy food and drinks at checkouts or using them in buy one, get one free offers, as part of a proposed government crackdown on obesity.

The planned restrictions were praised by health campaigners as a “bold first step” in Downing Street’s promised campaign against obesity.

The checkout restrictions will apply to other sales-boosting locations such as the entrances to stores or at the end of aisles. Similar rules will apply for websites, banning sales links to unhealthy foods on places such as homepages, or at checkout or payment pages. Restaurants will no longer be able to offer free refills of sugary drinks.

The restrictions will not come into force until April 2022, and will be subject to a consultation process first.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

Good old nudge theory at it's best. Remove the decision and less likely to be a problem.

Cant help but think a better route is to make fruit and veg more attractive and cheaper to buy.

Personally, I am tempted by a BOGOF on chocolate, but then take 3 or 4 days to eat it.

Unhealthy snacks to be banned from checkouts at supermarkets in England

Supermarkets in England are to be barred from displaying unhealthy food and drinks at checkouts or using them in buy one, get one free offers, as part of a proposed government crackdown on obesity.

The planned restrictions were praised by health campaigners as a “bold first step” in Downing Street’s promised campaign against obesity.

The checkout restrictions will apply to other sales-boosting locations such as the entrances to stores or at the end of aisles. Similar rules will apply for websites, banning sales links to unhealthy foods on places such as homepages, or at checkout or payment pages. Restaurants will no longer be able to offer free refills of sugary drinks.

The restrictions will not come into force until April 2022, and will be subject to a consultation process first.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

It's still better than ignoring the problem of obese unhealthy kids though isn't it ?

I find this a really conflicting subject. I will spend many days carefully eating all the right things, then binge on a packet of ginger biscuits I find. And who do I blame? My wife of course, for buying them in the first place. So i’m admitting my total lack of will power, and i’m pleased when I avoid the temptation through her not buying them. How weak is that?

Similarly I was pleased when smoking became socially unacceptable, then banned, which nudged me into giving up a filthy habit. Same applies to seat belts, where I lazily rarely used them before the law, because I just didn’t think about it, but now i’m pleased I have to.

I think the underlying principle must be ‘how do my rash actions affect others?’ By not smoking and wearing a seat belt I have hopefully provided a minuscule contribution to lessening the burden on the NHS. The same must surely apply to obesity, which I read is now the single biggest cause of subsequent NHS treatment for heart disease, kidney failure, diabetes and god knows how many other life threatening conditions.

So, I’m happy for my libertarian instincts to be waived in favour of any nudge which saves lives and pressure on our all-important NHS.

It's still better than ignoring the problem of obese unhealthy kids though isn't it ?

Absoutely. I'm all for it; I was just pointing out (admittedly rather mischievously) that it seems to go against some pretty fundamental Conservative tenets. I'm not a fan of theirs, you see.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

I'm sure there'll be more than enough mutterings from those Tories who have moved their investments out of the likes of BAT and to, say, Tate & Lyle.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

I'm sure there'll be more than enough mutterings from those Tories who have moved their investments out of the likes of BAT and to, say, Tate & Lyle.

Why the bitterness and why Tories in particular? Share ownership is widespread now regardless of political persuasion. But if it's MPs you're referring to, I'd suggest they all have the money to let other people to manage a well diversified portfolio - Tories, Labour, LibDems and no doubt Greens as well. If they haven't they're probably fools.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

I'm sure there'll be more than enough mutterings from those Tories who have moved their investments out of the likes of BAT and to, say, Tate & Lyle.

Why the bitterness and why Tories in particular? Share ownership is widespread now regardless of political persuasion. But if it's MPs you're referring to, I'd suggest they all have the money to let other people to manage a well diversified portfolio - Tories, Labour, LibDems and no doubt Greens as well. If they haven't they're probably fools.

You've answered your own question by suggesting anyone who invests ethically and doesn't care how they make a return is a fool, which could possibly be why there is a bitterness towards the Tory mindset.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

I'm sure there'll be more than enough mutterings from those Tories who have moved their investments out of the likes of BAT and to, say, Tate & Lyle.

Why the bitterness and why Tories in particular? Share ownership is widespread now regardless of political persuasion. But if it's MPs you're referring to, I'd suggest they all have the money to let other people to manage a well diversified portfolio - Tories, Labour, LibDems and no doubt Greens as well. If they haven't they're probably fools.

You've answered your own question by suggesting anyone who invests ethically and doesn't care how they make a return is a fool, which could possibly be why there is a bitterness towards the Tory mindset.

Really? So how many 'Tories' are we talking about here with this collective 'mindset'? Are they exclusive - not the slightest chance that others with different political persuasions have done the same - accidentally even? This is not the 1950s where Lord Twit tips off Sir Toffeenose about a nice little opportunity over a cigar and single malt in the members bar.

As I have said, in their world there is practically no chance they will be managing their own portfolios. I just don't see Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak having the time to move their funds around during trading time every Friday.

In fact there will likely be millions of people in the UK investing in stocks and shares. Given that much of that will be with fund managers etc., the majority will have no idea where their money is being placed - ethically or otherwise. How many people check the FactSheet for their pension for example? Any notion of say Fossil Fuel Funds, specific Country or Market based funds, mineral based funds - funds which barely describe what is actually in them? What about nested funds? No, most simply hire someone to get their 4% return, pay their annual fees and rest easy. I'm not suggesting anything in particular is unethical, but it illustrates that the vast majority of people do not take the time to care where their money is invested. It's well known that 90% odd of people in company pension shemes will leave their money in a default fund and have no idea of what it consists of. I doubt many MPs do either - Tory or otherwise - the bottom line is what counts to most people.

So, while there will always be the odd reveal of unethical or fraudulent behaviour in public office, it's generally a lazy unwarranted narrative.

On topic - I do feel the Government is treading close to getting too involved in our lives (as Sir Graham Brady recently wrote) - perhaps emboldened by the controls they've attempted to put in place around Covid. But at the the same time I can't stand the service station shop mentality at the checkout of 'do you want some crisps and chocolate for a pound?'. Regulation is needed but feel we have to be careful here.

Unhealthy snacks to be banned from checkouts at supermarkets in England

Supermarkets in England are to be barred from displaying unhealthy food and drinks at checkouts or using them in buy one, get one free offers, as part of a proposed government crackdown on obesity.

The planned restrictions were praised by health campaigners as a “bold first step” in Downing Street’s promised campaign against obesity.

The checkout restrictions will apply to other sales-boosting locations such as the entrances to stores or at the end of aisles. Similar rules will apply for websites, banning sales links to unhealthy foods on places such as homepages, or at checkout or payment pages. Restaurants will no longer be able to offer free refills of sugary drinks.

The restrictions will not come into force until April 2022, and will be subject to a consultation process first.

All fine and dandy (and that last sentence gives them plenty of time for it to be quietly forgotten) but isn't this a classic example of the kind of nanny-state big government interference so despised by generations of Conservatives, and the very antithesis of the libertarian and entrepreneurial spirit that they espouse?

Good old nudge theory at it's best. Remove the decision and less likely to be a problem.

Cant help but think a better route is to make fruit and veg more attractive and cheaper to buy.

Personally, I am tempted by a BOGOF on chocolate, but then take 3 or 4 days to eat it.

Exactly. I mean all those measures. Is that why kids are fat, because Snickers are for sale at supermarket checkouts? How often would you have to go shopping for that habit to make a dent in your otherwise healthy lifestyle?

If you go to any supermarket, select yourself a good size apple, then find their cheapest chicken or steak pie. In many instances the pie will be cheaper. Cheaper to buy a chicken or cow, farm it, give it medicine, kill it, make a crust pastry, a sauce, machinery, packaging, transport...than to just shake the apple tree and get it to the supermarket shelves.

So if you are in a low income household, what lasts longer? A £3 bag of 6 apples, or a £1 pack of 10 Rocky chocolate bars.
5 doughnuts for 50p, or a tray of 25 raspberries for £2.50.
A bag of 8 satsumas for £3, or 10 packets of crisps for £1.


Somewhere in the modern economy, eating decent healthy food has become a habit only people with a few quid can afford. But somehow if you want 5 large sausage rolls for £1, or 8 cheap fatty sausages for 40 pence you are always able to find those deals.

Am I alone in thinking that the only obvious solution to nearly every societal or health related problem is education. The preponderance of betting shops and cheap takeaway outlets is greatest in our poorest city areas, and our poorest citizens have generally received the poorest education. These areas also produce the greatest per capita number of obesity related health issues such as heart disease, diabetes, kidney disorders, all of which have replaced cancer as the No. 1 killers.

There was a great radio series two years ago where Peter Hennessy interviewed every living past prime minister. He asked the same final question to each of them; ‘what single part of your premiership would you change if you had the chance again’? Without exception each one answered that they would have been far more revolutionary in improving educational standards. They had all realised, too late, that this was the only way of addressing society’s most basic problems. I can’t remember the figure, but illiteracy levels in our prisons is truly staggering. Without becoming a nanny state, I would happily see my taxes raised to pay for hugely improved education to give all those who would otherwise miss out a better start in life, and enable them to make better informed lifestyle decisions.

Absolutely, improved education is the key and would pay back in so many ways. But in general, those in power don’t want a well-educated populace as that will challenge them and be less easy to manipulate to be their own designs. ‘Those in power’ here could be politicians, business leaders, landowners, senior managers. Enough education to make people useful and pliable but not a lot more is the key.

As the sainted Joe Strummer put it in White Riot back in 1977:

White people go to school
Where they teach you how to be thick

I always thought that hit the nail on the head. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. ('O' Level French, 1971 )