Public Health England To Make Illegal McDonald’s Big Mac

Public Health England, PHE, has decided that McDonald’s Big Mac should no longer be legally available in England. At least, that’s the implication of their latest little foray into public policy making. At which point this is all going to get interesting, isn’t it? For while the prodnoses burble among themselves the rest of us get on with living life as we wish. But at some point their whinges start to impact upon what we ourselves can do in our own lives. Those reductions of salt and sugar in many foods are why so many of them taste of nothing. But then, again at some point, there will be a reaction to this. At some point, assuming we’re all still enamoured of even the smallest amount of liberty, we’ll tell them to go boil their heads, won’t we?

Entirely true, we wouldn’t, ourselves, go to the barricades for a Big Mac. Actually, we’d help jail people who did if we were promised we’d never have to eat one. But given that McDonald’s sells some billion of the things a year (apparently, 550 million in the US, double and why not for a global estimate?) there’re an awful lot of people who disagree with us. And we would go to the barricades for the right to a Big Mac even if not for the reality.

Thus this might be rather overstepping what we’ll allow PHE to do to us:

Calorie limits will be imposed on thousands of foods sold in supermarkets and restaurants in a bid to combat obesity. Draft proposals seen by The Telegraph set out detailed caps for ready meals, sandwiches and even portions of vegetables served across the country. The plans, drawn up by Public Health England (PHE), suggest a limit of 544 calories for any convenience meal – far below many of those sold today. Sandwiches and main meal salads would be capped at 550 calories, with a limit of 951 calories for restaurant main courses, and varying limits for other specific foods depending on where they are consumed.

Yes, of course, this is the most ghastly manifestation of the Planner’s Fallacy. That anyone sitting centrally can know how many calories there should be in specific forms of food. Why should a restaurant meal be able to have more than a convenience one? We’re allowed an extra slice of cheese on our burger if it’s served on a plate perhaps? Why? And the mere idea that anyone knows that the xx1 calorie limit is correct – it is to laugh. Some bansturbator pleasuring himself in an office in Whitehall knows what a fisherman in Fife should be eating to within 0.1% of the energy content? This is insanity.

As the guru on such matters, Chris Snowdon, has been pointing out:

In neither case was there any scientific justification for moving the goalposts. Similarly, PHE’s limits on how many calories should be in your lunch are wholly arbitrary. They are useful weapons for campaigners and regulators. Nothing more. But that is enough, and a study published in the British Medical Journal this week shows how these weapons will be deployed. The authors looked at the calorie count of meals in 27 restaurant chains and declared the results to be ‘shocking’. The average calorie count was 977. Only nine per cent of meals met what the authors describe as ‘public health recommendations for energy content’, ie. PHE’s arbitrary numbers. If that were not enough, they also found that 47 per cent of meals served contained an ‘excessive’ number of calories. What is excessive? The authors admit that ‘[n]o international guidelines make recommendations about energy consumption per meal’ and, since there is no definition of ‘excessive’, they made one up themselves

The entirety of all of this is being made up out of thin air. There simply is no rhyme, reason nor rationale for these limits other than that the Puritans get to tell us what to do. And do recall, the definition of a Puritan is someone with a lingering fear that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves.

So, to these specific proposals. Convenience meals should contain, according to PHE, no more than 544 calories. Do take a moment just to savour that, it’s 544, not 543 or 545. How wise and omnisicient the bansturbators are! To be able to calculate our energy needs – our desires quite obviously aren’t being taken into account – to the accuracy level of 0.18%. No, not to 18%, to 0.18%, one calorie in 544. Sandwiches the same and a Big Mac is both a convenience food and a sandwich and thus will be covered by this. The problem being:

McDonald’s Big Mac/Energy Amount
563 calories

That’s the Big Mac alone, before and without the fries and a drink. So, yes, PHE is demanding that the Big Mac be made illegal.

At which point really, yes, we should tell them to go boil their heads, shouldn’t we? We will revolt, storm the barricades, over the bansturbators trying to rule our lives to this level of detail. OK, maybe we don’t hang them all at Execution Dock but could we at least stop spending our own tax money upon them?

For think again through what is being proposed. A ban on a popular foodstuff. Not, as might be viable with a Big Mac, upon the grounds of taste, but because we the proles out here are getting too much food too cheap. We’re being offered a bargain and that would just never do, would it? Why, we might even be having fun!

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
GR8M8SKevin Ronald LohseShadebursttimworstallLS Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Thomas Stokell
Guest
Thomas Stokell

Nearly everything we sell at McDonald’s is over 544 cals what they going to do shut them down

JdL
Guest
JdL

Wow! The U.S., alas, isn’t far behind Britain in formulating, and enforcing, arbitrary micromanaging rules upon every aspect of life.

TD
Guest
TD

Wouldn’t tax policy be more effective? For example, a substantial tax for every point a person is above their ideal BMI. You could have a national weigh in each December 31st, when people are at risk of being heavier following Christmas, and calculate a tax due for everyone who pips above their ideal, to be collected on the spot. Trying to ban certain foods seems an ineffective way of accomplishing what you want, which I assume is more svelte Englishmen. What’s next, outlaw fish & chips, beer, sugar in tea and Welsh cakes?

Dave Parker
Guest
Dave Parker

I already have to have 2 extra big macs with my big mac meal to feel remotely filled up they’re that small. I’m also perpetually underweight.

Kevin Ronald Lohse
Guest
Kevin Ronald Lohse

50 years ago I’d have agreed with you. Now I’m in the early evening of my life, I struggle to finish one Big Mac. It’s all a question of metabolism and activity levels, which is why the PHE initiative is an exercise in futility.

LS
Guest
LS

Macdonals and the advertising industry have a lot more control over the population than Public Health. Public Health is made up of a team of doctors and specialists working to reduce inequalities and promote health.

timworstall
Guest
timworstall

You’re entirely at liberty to believe that. The rest of us are going to howl with laughter at that belief which is also our liberty.

Shadeburst
Guest
Shadeburst

PHE is a huge army of bureaucrats who couldn’t give a damn about health or inequalities as long as they get to force people to do what they order them to.

GR8M8S
Guest
GR8M8S

Like your irony. You are not American then.