Of course, is using Google really that hard? [urlhttp://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/17/48030/obesity-set-to-cost-nhs-up-to-6.3bn-a-year-by-2015.html[/url

The 2015 date has since been brought forward due to the ever-increasing numbers of overweight citizens. You can have paid your tax for 45 years or more but you still haven't offset the cost to the NHS for your self-inflicted poor health, this is when it crosses over into being everyone else's problem as well. A fat tax would certainly help, much as smokers pay extra for the privilege of freedom, a similar tax on alcohol wouldn't go amiss either as its also costing the NHS a great deal in this day and age.

Sorry to burst your bubble but being overweight is certainly a serious problem that is costing everyone dearly, why should others have to fund your fat addiction?

There's most certainly an element of cookery programmes selling cookery books. But equally, there's obviously a market - or publishers wouldn't bother.

Obviously, I have no idea how many are used frequently, but I think even if they are hardly used, they do suggest a desire to cook or cook better.

My niece (23) grew up in a household where her mother (a single parent) would barely cook and, by what I hear, had a pretty dismal approach to providing food for her daughter. And I haven't had that much influence over her. But she likes to cook and will try things like homemade pizza - and did comment that, at university, she was one of the few who would actually cook things. I don't know what triggered her to do this, but she hasn't been made to and she takes a real pleasure in good food. I doubt she's unique in this, so there are at least some young people out there making an effort.

Setting aside the question of tax for the purpose of changing behaviour, a fat tax would be daft since fat, per se, is not the problem. Obesity has risen in exactly the same period that fats in general have been demonised and natural fats in particular.

Obesity has risen along with the number of public sector employees. Maybe we'll start to see it reduce now?

Of course, fat people are the problem. Perhaps I should have said, "Fatty Tax" instead of "Fat Tax"!

As an aside, I can't say I'm really convinced about your argument in favour of saturated fats - there are many, many links between saturated fats and various illnesses and health problems ranging from cancer to bone mineral density. I will agree that replacing fats with carbohydrates isn't good though.

blimey,I have a mega problem then cos' I really CAN'T cook - totally clueless

my good lady loves cooking and I love eating so what could be better ?

so by that theory then the same rules must apply to smokers & drinkers,not to mention junkies with all the diseases that they may contract which must be costing the NHS (as well as every health service in the world) billions each year ?


you're not a drinker or smoker Rinkadink by any chance ?

I asked for facts and methodology to determine those facts not an opinion stated by a discredited Chief Medical Officer over three years ago.

I rarely eat processed junk. My fats consist of dripping (beef & pork), butter, lard, goose fat and olive oil. I would never knowingly eat and margarine or any "healthy" spreads because I've seen the grey sludge that they really are before the addition of all the colourings and flavour enhancers.

Look for all the fatties out there, there'll still be plenty of Jim Fix characters. Starve yourself to the bone or run yourself into the ground if you wish. Don't tell me how to live my fooking life

Don't be daft, the NHS should only be there for healthy people

Of course, smokers already pay through the nose for the privilege as I alluded to before. You also pay increased tax on alcohol albeit a smaller amount when compared to cigarettes, it might need increasing?



All of the above are drugs, I take it you mean illegal ones? If so the cost to the NHS is negligible, especially when compared to the £6.2 billion figure. I say legalise them all and use the tax generated to cover rehab costs and the like. It will also be safer for users.



Ex-smoker and very occasional drinker, maybe a few pints once a month.

Thought you said you didn't care what I thought. Besides, seems you're in denial which is a classic sign of addiction. Is there any need to swear?

The Department of Health is more than one person you know; [url=http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Obesity/index.htmHere[/url

This is why Donaldson was discredited:

From your link above: [iIn 2007, the Government-commissioned Foresight report predicted that if no action was taken, [u60% of men[/u, 50% of women and 25% of children would be [uobese by 2050[/u.[/i

And from your earlier link: [iEngland's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson said: "In England, almost two-thirds of adults and a third of children are either overweight or obese without effective action this could rise to [unine in 10 adults[/u and two-thirds of children by 2050,"[/i

He blurs the definition of obese and overweight and fruit-loops like you jump on it.

I'm not in denial at all, as I said earlier in this thread, I used to weight 12.5 stones, ran 25 miles per week, refereed and ran lines at up to four games per week. All the time smoking 40 fags a day and drinking more than the government suggests is healthy.

The long-term damage caused by training for and playing rugby, to my knees, hips and hands has cost the NHS far more than my diet, drinking or smoking. Maybe we should ban sport?

Oh and I'll be dead long before 2050, so I shouldn't be a problem

Many of the complications involved with obesity do not materialize until the later years of someone's life. I do not think that sporting injuries amount to obesity's £4.2 billion cost to the NHS in 2008. Happy to be proven wrong though if you can provide the evidence?

The main point still stands, unlike the USA where we have nationalised healthcare someone who isn't you is paying the bill for your lack of effort to remain at a healthy weight. At no point did i suggest we ban anything, but maybe there is some way to recover the costs?

It's been an interesting debate anyway, I mean no ill.

You ask me to prove something? You're the one making so-far unsubstantiated assertions and your comparison with the a US-style system of healthcare is pure bollox. I am paying (and have been for the last 45 years) for someone else's healthcare, whether that be caused by obesity, drug overdoses, sex reassignment or traffic collisions. I don't have a problem with that, I'm quite happy to keep contributing. What I don't need is some evangelical nutjob like you, telling me what I should or shouldn't be eating or how much exercise I should take. If I can still drag a bass or turbot off the sea bed and then put it on my plate, then I'm happy.

So government bodies who actually run the NHS are not valid sources of information on the NHS?

Ha-ha, if you say so m'lard. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, have fun!

Not without any explanation of the methodology to subtsantiate their claims, NO.

It's similar to Cameron describing yesterday's strike as a "damp squib". All you have evidenced so far are opinions, weighing heavily on a previously discredited political-medico, twisting his own "facts" to suit his personal agenda. Not unlike yourself in fact

It always helps to post what you actually mean, yes.



So the French are all dying at a younger age than they should, from these diseases, then? And the rates of death from such health problems in the UK has come down as we've successfully demonised natural saturated fats, yes?

I have no clue how they calculate the £4.2 billion, but if it is accurate then as UK consumers spend approx £14.5 billion annually on junk food (probably much more, if you widen the definition beyond the fast food chains, pizza Chinese and Indian takeaways) then I'm guessing the VAT take on that, plus the Tax and NI on the businesses and generated by the people who work in them, not to mention the business rates and corporation tax produced, the fuel duty on delivery vehicles then I would say financially HM Gov comes out well on the right side of the equation, wouldn't you?

You see just because you think your a nutritional expert youve already overcomplicated it for mr and mrs ordinary, youve garbled on quoting this and stating that, its pretty simple really, you can eat anything you want, as long as its in moderation. A balanced diet with good phiz is whats needed so really Mintball it is that easy.

Then you need to define "balanced" and also "in moderation". And WTF is "good phiz" when it's all at home?

I could easily follow Mintball's statement, yours left me totally confused.

People who post such semi-illiterate stuff as "good phiz" are clearly are not getting the right fatty nutrients to support their brain cell.

Reminds me of something my nan said a good few years ago when my grandad was alive

i remarked when he was eating fish that it helped develop your brain eating a lot of fish to which my nan replied in another room

"He must have been eating bloody goldfish all his life then"

But it is quite interesting that the 'old wives' tale' about fish being brain food has serious depth to it, if you consider the importance of oily fish/omega oils to the health of the nervous system and, therefore, the brain. You have to wonder how they knew this stuff.

CANT COOK WONT COOK ! take away's are the nations answer to the fact that people are just bone idle!