Government health plans criticised as ‘missed opportunity’

[Northerner]

Doctors and health experts claim government plans to boost public health are too weak to deal with problems such as obesity, smoking and alcohol misuse that are claiming tens of thousands of lives a year.

The green paper on prevention of ill-health in England, which ministers slipped out quietly on Monday evening, includes proposals to end smoking by 2030, make food healthier and stop under-16s buying energy drinks.

But experts criticised the package of measures as inadequate, given the number of people dying avoidably from cancer, heart attacks and strokes linked to smoking and bad diet.

“With health inequalities in England widening and life expectancy improvements stalling, this green paper amounts to a missed opportunity. Perhaps unsurprisingly at a time of political uncertainty, the government has stepped back from the bold action required,” said Jo Bibby, the director of health at the Health Foundation thinktank.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...health-plans-criticised-as-missed-opportunity

 

[grovesy]

This does not surprise me.
I often watch the Commons Committee on Health and Matt Hancock does not seem to be on the ball to me. I also think he dismiss some of the MP's who happen to be Doctors too .

 

[mikeyB]

It’s a rather limited ambition, for sure. Smoking, for example, is already plummeting because of the simple expedient of banning advertising and display, and bunging up the costs. And under 16s being banned from buying energy drinks was Mrs May’s proposal almost exactly one year past. That particular proposal has sod all to do with the the nation’s health anyway. And how, might I ask, do you make food healthier? It’s people you’re supposed to be making healthier.

In Scotland, public health is more prioritised. Their 50p unit price imposed on alcohol is already producing a reduction in alcohol consumption, particularly among younger people. It’s not just that, there is also a ban on reduced price multipack offers on drink. You may notice on supermarket booze ads at holiday times on TV have small print at the bottom of the screen “Not available in Scotland”. The historic boozy Scot is becoming just that - historic. A simple measure costing nothing. And unlike ciggies, that’s not tax. The higher price benefits shops.

Of more concern is the drug problem, but that is not a devolved issue. The Scottish government want to imitate Portugal in introducing drug consumption rooms with support from social workers and health professionals on site. And no police. The government in England flatly refuse to allow this, because of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs act. In Portugal, drug deaths have reduced from a couple of thousand a year to a couple of hundred. And rates of injected drug consumption has fallen to its lowest ever level. That’s what Scotland wants to imitate.

I don’t want to hold up Scotland as a paragon of public health, (It isn’t). I just want show that if you really believe in Public Health improvements you don’t need to produce Green Papers, you just get on and do it.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Obesity, smoking and alcohol misuse are all controllable by the individual. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

 

[nonethewiser]

It’s a rather limited ambition, for sure. Smoking, for example, is already plummeting because of the simple expedient of banning advertising and display, and bunging up the costs.

Mike, as a retired gp what's your view on vaping that seems to be, to me the new smoking, often wonder if everyone who uses one ever smoked cigarettes.

 

[mikeyB]

I don’t know the answer to that question. I puffed a pipe, which you don’t (if you have any sense) inhale, but you still absorb nicotine. And I continue to consume nicotine for medical reasons- whenever I stop, my ulcerative colitis flares up.

For sure, I see kids in the very middle class village I live in vaping, so I suspect vaping will become the new smoking, because these kids are starting out vaping. Unlike when we were kids when you bought five loose Park Drive from the shop. I suspect this will just be a passing fad among the young, the girls don’t seem to approve

Obesity, smoking and alcohol misuse are all controllable by the individual. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

This argument was used when seat belt legislation was introduced, and come to think, speed limits. Sometimes, when all else fails, you have to point the population in the right direction, by force of legislation if necessary.

 

[Jodee]

Preventative health and health education is a good idea, but to any addict (smoker, drugs or alcohol) they are not likely to take any notice of health warnings, education once they are already addicted, but for sure if the young can take on board the reasons why not to get to the addict stage that is a good thing. But that situation is something that already happens in society.

With the current financial restrictions health generally should be prioritorised and it is I think to a degree, that is a person in urgent need of life saving medications and treatment has to come before any addict who may or may not be willing to attend cessation clinics.

Having said that, it was entirely irresponsible of any controlling body to allow the marketing of alcopops targetting teenagers getting them hooked on alcohol, the government should put a stop to that forthwith and to excess amounts of sugar being used in soft drinks and other foods. Just my views.

 

[Northerner]

Having said that, it was entirely irresponsible of any controlling body to allow the marketing of alcopops targetting teenagers getting them hooked on alcohol

This is precisely why personal responsibility cannot be the only solution - the whole marketing industry is based on getting you to consume things and they use a lot of highly-developed and opaque methods to persuade you (hence why a public health idea was to use plain packaging on cigarettes). You can't simply say that people should know better if you don't have public health initiatives to inform them of the risks and not to be taken in. I've always thought that 'innocent' smoothies (other brands are available) are the epitome of misleading marketing, those babies pack an enormous amount of sugar and pureed fruit will disrupt a person's metabolism just as much as a bottle of full fat Coke etc., yet people are taken in by the 'healthy' tag - it's fruit, right? Before I was diagnosed I believed it too and thought I was taking good decisions about my health from drinking them

 

[nonethewiser]

For sure, I see kids in the very middle class village I live in vaping, so I suspect vaping will become the new smoking, because these kids are starting out vaping. Unlike when we were kids when you bought five loose Park Drive from the shop. I suspect this will just be a passing fad among the young, the girls don’t seem to approve

For sure, we can only hope its a fad with the young.

Been to a lot of towns & city's this year, Edinburgh Glasgow Newcastle Manchester Liverpool York Durham and the number of these vape shops is staggering, only hope this vaping craze becomes antisocial just like cigarette smoking has in public.

 

[Bronco Billy]

This argument was used when seat belt legislation was introduced, and come to think, speed limits. Sometimes, when all else fails, you have to point the population in the right direction, by force of legislation if necessary.

If that’s true, it was a very bad argument. Another vehicle can crash into you while you are standing still, so the two are incomparable. The nanny state is never a good idea.

 

[mikeyB]

The nanny state can be useful, like the ban on smoking in public places, the use of seatbelts (the “nanny state” argument was used when they were introduced), crash helmets, the sugar tax, immunisation programs and so on. All are examples of the state interfering in the normal run of our living in a civilised country. I think we are quite content with a bit of nannying.

 

[Bronco Billy]

How far should it go? Do we start telling people what they can do in their own homes? Individuals should be free to make their own choices and businesses free to make their own rules. The smoking ban, together with an uncompetitive tax rate compared to supermarkets, crippled the pub trade. The cynic in me wouldn’t be surprised if this was the plan all along. The sugar tax is a dreadful idea and immunisation isn’t a legal obligation. You may be content with being told what to do, but others are happy to make their own decisions.

 

[mikeyB]

I’m not sure businesses should make their own rules, we got rid of that kind of thinking in the 19th century when kids were working in the mills and climbing up chimneys.

The drinks industry has responded to the sugar tax by reducing the sugar in soft drinks. Is that a bad thing? In Scotland, the 50p per unit alcohol price has reduced alcohol use. Is that a bad thing?

Public health measures are not an attack on personal choice or freedom, they are supposed to keep the population healthy and paying tax.

 

[Drummer]

If businesses began to produce electrical goods which were not safe to use and people were getting electric shocks, fires were starting etc. I am sure that the concept of rules would be revisited pretty quickly.
There was an outcry against the steel helmets issued to soldiers as the number of headwounds being treated went up - because the men were not dead from the impact.

 

[Eddy Edson]

The nanny state can be useful, like the ban on smoking in public places, the use of seatbelts (the “nanny state” argument was used when they were introduced), crash helmets, the sugar tax, immunisation programs and so on. All are examples of the state interfering in the normal run of our living in a civilised country. I think we are quite content with a bit of nannying.

A zillion years ago in my youth I had a temp gig helping the Road Traffic Authority here produce charts of road fatalities - fun times. It was striking first of all how many people get killed on the road and secondly how much the fatality rate dropped after seat belts were made compulsory.

Thus began my transformation from pimply Ayn Rand-spouting dork into the balanced, small-l liberal, mature human being Eddy of today.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I’m not sure businesses should make their own rules, we got rid of that kind of thinking in the 19th century when kids were working in the mills and climbing up chimneys.

The drinks industry has responded to the sugar tax by reducing the sugar in soft drinks. Is that a bad thing? In Scotland, the 50p per unit alcohol price has reduced alcohol use. Is that a bad thing?

Public health measures are not an attack on personal choice or freedom, they are supposed to keep the population healthy and paying tax.

You’re confusing laws with rules. There is a subtle difference.

The sugar tax is only a good thing if it achieves the desired effect, which it shows no sign of doing. I still see children walking to school with a can of Red Bull etc in their hand. The minimum alcohol price in Scotland is a bad thing if it stops the less well-off enjoying a few drinks at the end of the working week. Anyway, it hasn’t done what you suggest. One article I read said consumption has actually increased.

I’m not a smoker, but the inevitable next step in the war on smoking of banning people from smoking in their own car will be an attack on personal choice and freedom.

 

[Northerner]

Personal responsibility is all well and good, but some choices need to be dissuaded if they are costing society money and leading to large sections of the population requiring, for example, expensive hospital treatments, particularly alcohol and smoking. This isn't 'nannying', it's social responsibility. As the wise philosopher Spock would say 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. Raising the unit cost of alcohol didn't actually raise the prices of most drinks, but significantly raised the prices of things like super-strength lager and white cider. Also, maybe if people didn't smoke in their cars then they wouldn't be tempted to empty their ashtrays on pavements

Mind you, if we hadn't all been told to go low-fat for decades then maybe we'd be in better shape today!

 

[mikeyB]

’m not sure businesses should make their own rules, we got rid of that kind of thinking in the 19th century when kids were working in the mills and climbing up chimneys.

The drinks industry has responded to the sugar tax by reducing the sugar in soft drinks. Is that a bad thing? In Scotland, the 50p per unit alcohol price has reduced alcohol use. Is that a bad thing?

Public health measures are not an attack on personal choice or freedom, they are supposed to keep the population healthy and paying tax.



You’re confusing laws with rules. There is a subtle difference.

The sugar tax is only a good thing if it achieves the desired effect, which it shows no sign of doing. I still see children walking to school with a can of Red Bull etc in their hand. The minimum alcohol price in Scotland is a bad thing if it stops the less well-off enjoying a few drinks at the end of the working week. Anyway, it hasn’t done what you suggest. One article I read said consumption has actually increased.

I’m not a smoker, but the inevitable next step in the war on smoking of banning people from smoking in their own car will be an attack on personal choice and freedom.

One article may say that, but it isn’t the case. Alcohol consumption has dropped across Scotland. And why do folk need to relax with a few drinks at the end of a working week? Alcohol is a dangerous drug. It’s perfectly possible to relax without having a drink. In England 10% of hospital admissions are related to alcohol, far more than any other drug. That’s an enormous cost, which is why Scotland took action, where the numbers were higher.

And it will take decades to assess whether the sugar tax will work. With Red Bull, it’s the high level of caffeine that means shops don’t sell them to children. I don’t think that’s the law yet, but it will be. Most supermarkets won’t now.

 

[Sally W]

This is precisely why personal responsibility cannot be the only solution - the whole marketing industry is based on getting you to consume things and they use a lot of highly-developed and opaque methods to persuade you (hence why a public health idea was to use plain packaging on cigarettes). You can't simply say that people should know better if you don't have public health initiatives to inform them of the risks and not to be taken in. I've always thought that 'innocent' smoothies (other brands are available) are the epitome of misleading marketing, those babies pack an enormous amount of sugar and pureed fruit will disrupt a person's metabolism just as much as a bottle of full fat Coke etc., yet people are taken in by the 'healthy' tag - it's fruit, right? Before I was diagnosed I believed it too and thought I was taking good decisions about my health from drinking them

I couldn’t agree more Alan. I use NLP in my business & it’s surprising how subtle phrasing has a huge impact on the subconscious. I’d force ‘Innocent’ to change their name or their formulation to reflect their confusing but alluring product name.

 

[Bronco Billy]

There’s more than one article actually, but I guess it depends on who you want to believe and how you interpret the lies, damn lies and statistics. How people relax is up to them. Surely you’re not advocating the Government tells us how we are allowed to unwind? Many would dispute that alcohol is a drug, but as for the Scottish Government, like many things, they’ve done it because they can rather than because they should simply to justify their existence.

Other brands of energy drink are available.