Too Fat To Work? £22k in Benefits [Archive]

robbieduncan

Mar 17, 2009, 10:03 AM

Yes, I know, it's the Daily Mail, but still too fat to work (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162503/The-real-telly-tubbies-X-Factor-failures-83-stone-family-claim-simply-fat-work.html).

So much to take issue with. For example none of them actually look like they are too fat to work in, for example, a call centre. Or the fact they claim it's a "hereditary condition" despite the parents of the family not sharing parents themselves (I hope).

Choice quote: "Mr Chawner said: ‘We love TV. It’s on from the moment we get up. Often I’m so tired from watching TV I have to have a nap.’ " Yes, that's right, it's hereditary, not watching so much TV that it tires them out that's making them fat.

Oh and the "0 pears" on the shopping list is fantastic too.

So basically why should the rest of us in the UK support this frankly disgusting and degenerate lifestyle?

sushi

Mar 17, 2009, 10:08 AM

mcavjame

Mar 17, 2009, 10:12 AM

Sounds like one of the "news" pieces designed to bait a response. Who doesn't take responsibility for their own choices?

Don't have time to diet? What you eat is your diet. That's like saying I don't have time to eat (which they obviously do).

I'd be tempted to check out the validity of that story, but I'm too busy taking a nap from all my telly watching.

MacBoobsPro

Mar 17, 2009, 10:22 AM

If they are so fat to work then why is one of them studying? I bet it ain't for ***** and giggles.

This disgusts me.

I have recently discovered I am allergic to milk and its why I weigh under 8 stone. Yet I am paying myself for all the extra crap I am being asked to consume. As well as work (hard) to pay for the house I can't afford to live in and so rent it out, and I am paying for those fat ***** to sit around and do **** all. :mad:

Consultant

Mar 17, 2009, 10:22 AM

Make them eat only pineapples and other healthy, high fiber food and see them lose weight quickly.

michael.lauden

Mar 17, 2009, 10:24 AM

man if only i was huge and fat

sushi

Mar 17, 2009, 10:26 AM

man if only i was huge and fat
Hmm...

Now you have me thinking. Maybe that is a way to not work any more. Kind of like an early retirement. Ha ha!

BTW, wonder what their wedding photo looks like?

edesignuk

Mar 17, 2009, 10:28 AM

Right, that does it. let's kill 'em.

Yeah, I said it.

MacBoobsPro

Mar 17, 2009, 10:29 AM

Right, that does it. let's kill 'em.

Yeah, I said it.

As I am probably the skinniest may eat them?

iBlue

Mar 17, 2009, 10:32 AM

Goddamned government cheese!

Consultant

Mar 17, 2009, 10:34 AM

Right, that does it. let's kill 'em.

Yeah, I said it.

You can send them to the Heart Attack Grill, probably would do the job pretty quickly.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=662771

mcavjame

Mar 17, 2009, 10:36 AM

man if only i was huge and fat

Wasn't there a Simpson's episode about this? Homer wears a Mu-Mu and works from home.

iJohnHenry

Mar 17, 2009, 10:39 AM

Here's two of them, waiting for McD's to open.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/MacQuque.jpg

robbieduncan

Mar 17, 2009, 10:39 AM

Wasn't there a Simpson's episode about this? Homer wears a Mu-Mu and works from home.

Yes

http://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/homer_muumuu.jpg

waiwai

Mar 17, 2009, 10:39 AM

You can send them to the Heart Attack Grill, probably would do the job pretty quickly.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=662771

i dunno getting them shipped over there to indulge is going to be too much "work"... :S

sushi

Mar 17, 2009, 11:40 PM

Here's two of them, waiting for McD's to open.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/MacQuque.jpg
Wow! Just wow!

So many overweight people these days.

Iscariot

Mar 17, 2009, 11:56 PM

You would have to pay me a lot more than £22k a year to get that big. I don't actually think there is a dollar value high enough that I would cash in for morbid obesity. Anyone thinking "I'll just get really fat and cheat the system"; would the money really be worth sacrificing your health, your mobility, your appearance and any kind of active life?

I actually feel very, very sorry for this family, especially the two children. I think what the parents have done to them by passing down this lifestyle is nothing short of negligence and child abuse. It must be a truly miserable existence.

If you're outraged by this sort of thing, then write your local representative and ask them what steps are being taken to adequately combat the obesity epidemic. We need real nutritional education in schools at every level, physical education as more than a gateway for early-bloomers into sports, and more comprehensive food labels, food production laws and food advertising laws.
I have recently discovered I am allergic to milk…

Lactose intolerance is a bitch, isn't it? I grew up on horrible goat's milk because no other decent alternative had made it's way to my parent's town. I was pretty runty most of my life.

.Andy

Mar 18, 2009, 12:16 AM

What on earth are you doing reading the Daily Mail robbieduncan? Even worse what on earth are you doing posting links to it and repeating their "stories"?

CalBoy

Mar 18, 2009, 12:23 AM

I'd be tempted to check out the validity of that story, but I'm too busy taking a nap from all my telly watching.

So has anyone been able to verify this story?

Google News seems to be returning results of questionable merit.

We need real nutritional education in schools at every level, physical education as more than a gateway for early-bloomers into sports, and more comprehensive food labels, food production laws and food advertising laws.

Undoubtedly.

Ignorance of nutrition, I think, is one of the biggest threats to the developed world in the modern era. Combine that with aggressive marketing by companies whose goal is to package and sell sugars, fats, and oils, and it doesn't look good for the vegetables and fruits.

The question here is, what do we do with people who are such blatant violators of the principle of self-restraint? Is it right for them to be put on the dole for something they caused themselves, and for something they can correct themselves?

Greenhoe

Mar 18, 2009, 12:47 AM

People like me make me SICK! If this is a true story then that just pisses me off more on how my taxes are always being raised, for what to support lazy ass people like these?

I'm sorry if this is wrong but I honestly would not feel one bit of sorrow if this entire family was put out on the street and hung for stealing from all the hard working tax payers, atleast that is what would of happened a couple hundred years ago.

EricNau

Mar 18, 2009, 12:53 AM

We need real nutritional education in schools at every level. . .
I don't think that's the issue. Everyone is well aware that a homemade salad with fat-free dressing is healthier than a McDonald's Big Mac, but many choose the hamburger nonetheless. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of resolve.

CalBoy

Mar 18, 2009, 12:59 AM

I don't think that's the issue. Everyone is well aware that a homemade salad with fat-free dressing is healthier than a McDonald's Big Mac, but many choose the hamburger nonetheless. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of resolve.

To a large degree though, kids (and as they age, adults) are unaware of what their bodies need and why.

Portion control is also grossly misaligned in the American diet. Even traditionally "small" servings are too much for one meal. Factor in less time for parents to make healthy meals, and the deck is stacked.

Like smoking and other health education, proper food education needs to be honest, persistent, and prioritized.

And for god's sake, let people eat real butter with their toast! (personal pet peeve). :p

EricNau

Mar 18, 2009, 01:20 AM

To a large degree though, kids (and as they age, adults) are unaware of what their bodies need and why.

Portion control is also grossly misaligned in the American diet. Even traditionally "small" servings are too much for one meal. Factor in less time for parents to make healthy meals, and the deck is stacked.

Like smoking and other health education, proper food education needs to be honest, persistent, and prioritized.

And for god's sake, let people eat real butter with their toast! (personal pet peeve). :p
Smoking is a good parallel. There isn't an American alive who isn't aware of the health risks associated with smoking; every carton is labeled with, "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health," and millions are spent every year on educating children about the dangers of smoking. Yet, many thousands of Americans begin smoking every year. Can we really claim ignorance as the problem, or does the issue go deeper than that?

At what point do we accept that it's a choice? Given that all parties are well informed, perhaps it's best to accept that others are entitled to make personally harmful decisions, and often will, despite the damage.

At what point does education become propaganda?

bartelby

Mar 18, 2009, 01:26 AM

What on earth are you doing reading the Daily Mail robbieduncan? Even worse what on earth are you doing posting links to it and repeating their "stories"?

That's kind of what I was thinking.

CalBoy

Mar 18, 2009, 01:43 AM

Can we really claim ignorance as the problem, or does the issue go deeper than that?

I think for the moment ignorance does play a much larger role. Most Americans know of the risks associated with smoking, and hence the vast majority don't smoke.

Compare smoking today to smoking in the 1950s when the average person knew very little about how nicotine works. That's where Americans are in regards to nutrition in my opinion. There's mass ignorance and powerful addiction still at play.

At what point do we accept that it's a choice? Given that all parties are well informed, perhaps it's best to accept that others are entitled to make personally harmful decisions, and often will, despite the damage.

At what point does education become propaganda?

If the majority of Americans are capable of explaining how many calories they need to eat, which vitamins they need, and why calcium is important, then I think education's task is done.

If people know of the pitfalls of their poor diets, then they are really making bad decisions on the same level as cigarettes. I honestly don't think most people are there yet though. I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt most Americans know basic nutrition considering the fact that only 27% can name the 3 branches of government. ;)

EricNau

Mar 18, 2009, 01:50 AM

. . .but somehow I doubt most Americans know basic nutrition considering the fact that only 27% can name the 3 branches of government. ;)
Fair enough. :D

You're most likely right, but I do remain somewhat skeptical that more information would remedy the issue. Assuming most already know that regular McDonald's happy meals are bad for their health, would knowing why really affect their decision?

woolyback

Mar 18, 2009, 02:26 AM

What on earth are you doing reading the Daily Mail robbieduncan? Even worse what on earth are you doing posting links to it and repeating their "stories"?

From the last line of the Mail article

The full feature appears in Closer magazine, on sale now.

So really, the Mail is just passing on this feel-good story

;)

Badradio

Mar 18, 2009, 04:21 AM

As I am probably the skinniest may eat them?
Not sure George Foreman makes a grill in that size.

robbieduncan

Mar 18, 2009, 05:23 AM

What on earth are you doing reading the Daily Mail robbieduncan? Even worse what on earth are you doing posting links to it and repeating their "stories"?

I wasn't. It's been linked to from two other forums I frequent...

trule

Mar 18, 2009, 10:22 AM

So basically why should the rest of us in the UK support this frankly disgusting and degenerate lifestyle?

Check book reporting, I'm sure they got a couple of hampers for being obnoxious for the reporters.

They are not the fattest people around ... and 22k spread over 5 people is not that much money. From the sounds of things none of them will live long enough to need a pension, at which point they would all get a "pay" rise, so it could be worse.

CalBoy

Mar 18, 2009, 11:00 AM

Fair enough. :D

You're most likely right, but I do remain somewhat skeptical that more information would remedy the issue. Assuming most already know that regular McDonald's happy meals are bad for their health, would knowing why really affect their decision?

It's not always fast food though.

Many people eat fatty foods (in very large quantities) at home and think that they're doing well.

On another level, people are generally aware of what they should eat and shouldn't eat, but without knowing why, they're missing out on the gravity of the situation, and feel less inhibition to eat more, which is the bigger problem.

sushi

Mar 18, 2009, 11:13 AM

f people know of the pitfalls of their poor diets, then they are really making bad decisions on the same level as cigarettes. I honestly don't think most people are there yet though. I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt most Americans know basic nutrition considering the fact that only 27% can name the 3 branches of government. ;)
The three branches of government is easy: Left, Right and Center. :p

Agree with you about nutrition.

I believe that one contributing factor is that in many households, both parents work. That leaves less time for meal planning and preparation. Fast food or other convenient food becomes the norm since it provides an easy solution for many. When I was growing up, this was much different in that the mother would stay at home and would prepare homemade wholesome meals for the family. Can't beat homemade breads...

iJohnHenry

Mar 18, 2009, 11:18 AM

Wow! Just wow!

So many overweight people these days.

The clock is the kicker. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/j54.gif

CalBoy

Mar 18, 2009, 11:22 AM

I believe that one contributing factor is that in many households, both parents work. That leaves less time for meal planning and preparation. Fast food or other convenient food becomes the norm since it provides an easy solution for many. When I was growing up, this was much different in that the mother would stay at home and would prepare homemade wholesome meals for the family. Can't beat homemade breads...

That definitely plays a big role, as does portion size. Our appetites have increased dramatically even though we now do less physical work. That can't continue.

sushi

Mar 18, 2009, 11:28 AM

The clock is the kicker. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/j54.gif
Nothing like starting out the day with some quality fat!

That definitely plays a big role, as does portion size. Our appetites have increased dramatically even though we now do less physical work. That can't continue.
Agree with portion control.

My wife was astounded the first time she visited the states and saw how big the serving portions were compared to Japan. We ended up getting one meal and splitting it in most cases. USA is the land of plenty and it shows in the portion size ... and the cheap cost of food as well.

CalBoy

Mar 18, 2009, 11:33 AM

My wife was astounded the first time she visited the states and saw how big the serving portions were compared to Japan. We ended up getting one meal and splitting it in most cases. USA is the land of plenty and it shows in the portion size ... and the cheap cost of food as well.

Cheap in the short term; deadly expensive in the long term. :o

Or in this case, expensive for the tax payer as well.

Abstract

Mar 18, 2009, 01:21 PM

Those people are not too fat to work. They're too fat, yes, but not too fat to work.

Mr Chawner said: ‘We love TV. It’s on from the moment we get up. Often I’m so tired from watching TV I have to have a nap.’

Yet of their £22,508 a year in tax-free benefits - equivalent to a £30,000 salary - Mr Chawner said: ‘What we get barely covers the bills and puts food on the table. It’s not our fault we can’t work. We deserve more.’

**********.

Abstract

Mar 18, 2009, 01:29 PM

I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt most Americans know basic nutrition considering the fact that only 27% can name the 3 branches of government. ;)

The White House, the Senate, and the.......uh.........the Octagon.

Then there's that 4th place that's in the U.N., where all those decisions are made. And don't forget Rush Limbaugh.

See? I named at least 5.

Iscariot

Mar 18, 2009, 02:26 PM

Everyone is well aware that a homemade salad with fat-free dressing is healthier than a McDonald's Big Mac, but many choose the hamburger nonetheless.

Most people are absolutely not aware of that at all. There are a shocking number of people who don't know what a calorie is, have absolutely no concept of how many calories they should be eating in a day, and are totally unable to understand the concept of metabolism. There are numerous studies that indicate not only that people in general have an abysmal understanding of nutrition and physical activity, but also that an increase in knowledge translates directly into an increase in healthy eating and exercise.

gkarris

Mar 18, 2009, 03:13 PM

I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt most Americans know basic nutrition considering the fact that only 27% can name the 3 branches of government. ;)

:confused:

The Nina, the Pinto, and the Santa Ana...

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Atkins says the problem is all "Carbs...." :eek:

/sarcasm

:p

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 18, 2009, 03:34 PM

I don't think that's the issue. Everyone is well aware that a homemade salad with fat-free dressing is healthier than a McDonald's Big Mac, but many choose the hamburger nonetheless. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of resolve.

Not to nitpick, but if you do some label-reading you'll find that a goodly percentage of those "reduced fat" or "fat free" dressings are in fact loaded with sugar and/or HFCS, which is just as bad if not more so.

I believe that one contributing factor is that in many households, both parents work. That leaves less time for meal planning and preparation. Fast food or other convenient food becomes the norm since it provides an easy solution for many. When I was growing up, this was much different in that the mother would stay at home and would prepare homemade wholesome meals for the family. Can't beat homemade breads...

+1 for that, but I'd add that actually learning how to cook has become a dying skill. I have never dated a woman who knew how to cook beyond boil water, add macaroni, stir in nuclear-orange "cheese" powder. I suppose I'm fairly lucky in that my mother insisted I learn how to take raw, unprocessed ingredients and transform them into something edible.

A while back the missus and I conducted an experiment. We cut out all processed foods of any sort, no eating out or anything except for one meal a week each when we could have whatever we liked, ate just as much as we normally would, didn't exercise any more or less. I lost about 20 pounds in 2 months just from that change.

Mousse

Mar 18, 2009, 04:32 PM

That definitely plays a big role, as does portion size. Our appetites have increased dramatically even though we now do less physical work. That can't continue.

Indeed. People have gotten lazier with each generation and with new technological advances. Just the other day, I had a couple of buddies over to help me repair a downed fence. One look at the assortment of tools and they asked, "Where's the cordless drill? And circular saw? The pneumatic nail driver? Where are the power tools?!" I brought out my tool box, held up a Philips and said, "This and a bit of muscle will do the same job as a cordless screwdriver." I showed off a handsaw and hammer and said, "These are good enough." Finally, I flexed my arms and said, "These are the only power tools a man really needs." Needless to say, I ended up repairing the fence myself.:p

I eat as much as, if not more than, most Americans (I average about 3500 Calories a day), but haven't gained a pound since my early 30's.:cool: Nothing like being worked like a rented mule to burn off all those greasy burgers.;) I read somewhere that Michael Phelps inhales 12,000 Calories a day?!:eek: Maybe we need to learn his work ethics.:cool:

Applespider

Mar 18, 2009, 04:35 PM

I believe that one contributing factor is that in many households, both parents work. That leaves less time for meal planning and preparation. Fast food or other convenient food becomes the norm since it provides an easy solution for many.

I think that's become a convenient excuse. My parents both worked but my mother still cooked and taught me to cook. I work a full day but still manage to go to the gym and then come home and cook something. Cooking from scratch doesn't have to mean taking a long time.

I have never dated a woman who knew how to cook beyond boil water, add macaroni, stir in nuclear-orange "cheese" powder.

I find that horrifying! :eek:

iJohnHenry

Mar 18, 2009, 04:58 PM

The Nina, the Pinto, and the Santa Ana...

Now that statement is just a lot of hot air. :mad:

allmIne

Mar 18, 2009, 05:56 PM

Check book reporting, I'm sure they got a couple of hampers for being obnoxious for the reporters.

They are not the fattest people around ... and 22k spread over 5 people is not that much money. From the sounds of things none of them will live long enough to need a pension, at which point they would all get a "pay" rise, so it could be worse.

It absolutely is when it's undeserved, and paid for by the rest of us.

Hereditary? Show me a child in Africa complaining of a fat gene.

RedTomato

Mar 18, 2009, 06:48 PM

The Daily Mail just makes up *****. They love provoking their readers and confirming their prejudices.

They once nearly printed an article about me that contained untrue statements, without even bothering to contact me. I rang them at 1am, threatening to sue them, and they pulled the content 30mins before it was due to be printed.

sushi

Mar 18, 2009, 06:50 PM

Not to nitpick, but if you do some label-reading you'll find that a goodly percentage of those "reduced fat" or "fat free" dressings are in fact loaded with sugar and/or HFCS, which is just as bad if not more so.
I've been out to lunch with some folks who have a "salad" to cut back on the calories.

Unfortunately, their salad ends up having way more calories than they realize because they drench the salad in low fat salad dressing, and add many other non-lettuce type items.

They are simply amazed when they find this out.

+1 for that, but I'd add that actually learning how to cook has become a dying skill. I have never dated a woman who knew how to cook beyond boil water, add macaroni, stir in nuclear-orange "cheese" powder. I suppose I'm fairly lucky in that my mother insisted I learn how to take raw, unprocessed ingredients and transform them into something edible.
Agree. I dated many ladies who were amazed at my cooking skills and I know just a few things. It really is surprising how many young adults cannot cook or prepare a meal for themselves.

Then again, the microwave has made it so easy to just nuke something.

A while back the missus and I conducted an experiment. We cut out all processed foods of any sort, no eating out or anything except for one meal a week each when we could have whatever we liked, ate just as much as we normally would, didn't exercise any more or less. I lost about 20 pounds in 2 months just from that change.
Awesome. Lot's of junk in our foods these days.

I think that's become a convenient excuse. My parents both worked but my mother still cooked and taught me to cook. I work a full day but still manage to go to the gym and then come home and cook something. Cooking from scratch doesn't have to mean taking a long time.
You were lucky to have parents like this.

I would still say for many, to come home and pop something in the microwave and wait a few minutes is the norm.

One nice thing here in Japan, is the wonderful Bento meals that you can purchase at the local supermarkets and convenience stores. Many in Japan work long hours and get home very late so they have it down to a science on how you can eat well without cooking. I would venture to say that you could eat every meal for a year from 7/11 or a Lawson Store and maintain a fairly healthy diet.

calculus

Mar 18, 2009, 06:58 PM

Well of course this is small change compared with the sums being paid to some early retirees from our hugely successful banking system.

barkmonster

Mar 18, 2009, 07:04 PM

I can see it now.

They're forced against their will to run on tread mills all day long till they ARE fit to work in a different capacity. This would obviously be under the guise of "self-employment" for minimum wage, not slavery or captivity because that would be wrong.

The treadmills will have dynamos in them hooked up to the electric hob of a KFC which they'd then spend their wages on at lunch time because they'd never resist it's chickeny goodness.

They would have no chance of gaining the weight they've lost because they'd be limited to only side orders for their own good.

Once they have a healthy BMI, they get to move up to working in the kitchens.

We get to eat junk food right in front of their stupid lazy faces, safe in the knowledge that as sensible people, we only eat crap once in a while.

They will of course be banned from eating at KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, Wimpy (if they're still going, not seen one since the late 80s) and most importantly... GREGGs because they can't eat all the pies if you cut them off like a junky going cold turkey.

robbieduncan

Mar 19, 2009, 03:44 AM

I think that's become a convenient excuse. My parents both worked but my mother still cooked and taught me to cook. I work a full day but still manage to go to the gym and then come home and cook something. Cooking from scratch doesn't have to mean taking a long time.

I'm the same: my mother put a home cooked meal on the table seven days a week as well as working full time. I learnt most of my cooking by helping her out.

Well of course this is small change compared with the sums being paid to some early retirees from our hugely successful banking system.

Rewarding failure is annoying in all forms...

.Andy

Mar 19, 2009, 07:03 AM

Rewarding failure is annoying in all forms...
Like linking to the Daily Mail for instance ;)?

robbieduncan

Mar 19, 2009, 08:00 AM

Like linking to the Daily Mail for instance ;)?

I could link to The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kelvin_mackenzie/article2327575.ece) instead?

.Andy

Mar 19, 2009, 08:05 AM

I could link to The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kelvin_mackenzie/article2327575.ece) instead?
Good heavens what the hell is wrong with your newspapers :eek:.

robbieduncan

Mar 19, 2009, 08:08 AM

Good heavens what the hell is wrong with your newspapers :eek:.

Mine or this countries? Personally I don't buy/read papers apart from the very occasional Sunday Times. This countries? Well mostly they cater to the sort of people who are over-prevalent here. You know the McDonalds eating, Pop Idol watching types...

.Andy

Mar 19, 2009, 08:14 AM

Mine or this countries? Personally I don't buy/read papers apart from the very occasional Sunday Times. This countries? Well mostly they cater to the sort of people who are over-prevalent here. You know the McDonalds eating, Pop Idol watching types...
Your country's. Both the sun and the daily mail are absolutely atrocious. I thought our daily telegraph here printed some awful trash. But both those take the cake.

I might have detected a theme though - the worse the tabloid trash a newspaper prints, the more horrible the website is in terms of layout and design seems to be. All three of the aforementioned newspapers have ghastly website design.

robbieduncan

Mar 19, 2009, 08:18 AM

Your country's. Both the sun and the daily mail are absolutely atrocious. I thought our daily telegraph here printed some awful trash. But both those take the cake.

Ooh, you should really check out The Daily Sport then. I'm not sure it actually prints any news at all though...

arkitect

Mar 19, 2009, 08:20 AM

I fear this is just advance publicity for the next "reality" show on ITV…
:o
"The Lardbuckets"™… sort of like "The Osbournes"
Less drugs more trans fats.

Your host! Jeremy Kyle.

Don't joke, I am sure they are in negotiations right now.

.Andy

Mar 19, 2009, 08:23 AM

Ooh, you should really check out The Daily Sport then. I'm not sure it actually prints any news at all though...
It doesn't appear to print any sport either! Just breasts.

mkrishnan

Mar 19, 2009, 08:25 AM

So has anyone been able to verify this story?

At least certain aspects of the story seem fairly suspect. For instance, the story claims, in lumping all the disability payments together, that 330 pounds they receive weekly for one of their' asthma and epilepsy is the result of diseases caused by the excess weight. Asthma, sure, can be exacerbated by weight, but I'm not aware of any cases of obesity-induced seizure disorders, unless maybe, maybe, someone had a series of diabetic seizures that caused epileptogenicity and then went on to have more de novo seizures.

Anyway, this piece altogether is yet another example of the sterling quality of British journalism. ;) It would have been better however, if they also had a 12 year old in the family who had a child.

arkitect

Mar 19, 2009, 08:30 AM

It would have been better however, if they also had a 12 year old in the family who had a child.

I think they're saving that scoop for the weekend edition.

mkrishnan

Mar 19, 2009, 08:34 AM

I think they're saving that scoop for the weekend edition.

I think that, when one is too fat to work, every day is one's weekend. ;)

arkitect

Mar 19, 2009, 08:36 AM

I think that, when one is too fat to work, every day is one's weekend. ;)

:confused:

I meant the newspapers' weekend edition.
Don't you have those in the US?
;)

Dagless

Mar 19, 2009, 09:18 AM

What on earth are you doing reading the Daily Mail robbieduncan? Even worse what on earth are you doing posting links to it and repeating their "stories"?

Why, is it fiction?

jabingla2810

Mar 19, 2009, 09:36 AM

Things like this really annoy me.

Too fat to work?!

People like should be ****ing put down....

I grew a bit of a belly last year, so i started running.... belly gone.

That money is tax free too..... which means they earn more than I do a year and I work 35 hours a week.

And dont knock the daily star people.... its the same news, just more breasts :)

carlgo

Mar 19, 2009, 09:41 AM

Hereditary? Show me a child in Africa complaining of a fat gene.

No fat Somalians that I have seen.

Also, where are all those big-boned skeletons? Has anyone seen something like a foot-wide diameter leg bone?:eek:

mkrishnan

Mar 19, 2009, 09:57 AM

I meant the newspapers' weekend edition.
Don't you have those in the US?

We do, sorry, yes -- it was a joke. Although, I'm not sure that one should generally compare US newspapers with the Daily Mail. ;)

No fat Somalians that I have seen.

Also, where are all those big-boned skeletons? Has anyone seen something like a foot-wide diameter leg bone?:eek:

Genetic models of obesity are generally epigenetic, meaning the gene confers a substantial risk but requires environmental triggers to express -- in Africa traditionally, since food was scarce, obesity has been viewed as a blessing or privilege of the rich. There are plenty of wealthy or powerful figures in Africa who are overweight or obese. Even a person with a very genetic obesity should theoretically maintain a normal weight were their exercise and diet rigidly controlled, but they might need much more rigid controls on these things to maintain the weight.

And I don't think anyone is claiming being big boned explains obesity completely. There is generally a medical expectation that a person with a big frame should carry a little more weight, but the percentage is small and they would still fall within the envelope of normal BMIs generally.

charlesbronsen

Mar 19, 2009, 11:00 AM

wow that is truly disgusting, just makes me sick:mad: Those parents should be harpooned... Dunno if I feel bad for the kids or not tho. The "pears just tasted funny" is unreal

Eraserhead

Mar 19, 2009, 05:01 PM

We do, sorry, yes -- it was a joke. Although, I'm not sure that one should generally compare US newspapers with the Daily Mail. ;)

Yeah, because then it might appear that the Daily Mail was good :eek:.

mkrishnan

Mar 19, 2009, 06:20 PM

Yeah, because then it might appear that the Daily Mail was good :eek:.

Good for what? I'm sure it makes excellent bird cage lining. ;)

Jaffa Cake

Mar 19, 2009, 06:29 PM

Good for what? I'm sure it makes excellent bird cage lining. ;)It doesn't – when you change the lining you end up putting more crap in the cage than you take out...

RedTomato

Mar 19, 2009, 06:41 PM

Loving the comment from one of the readers.

Posted by: Staciie-Naomii

This artical is distgisting why the hell would people wanna right about them in such bad words. Soo what if there fat. Thats there problam not yours or the public. If they wanna loose weight then they wanna. if they dont then they dont wanna. Why should they change there life stylee becasue there fat. Aslong as there happy wid who they are why shud they stop there lifestyle because this artical said that. it actually amazes me how people writing this artical can say such things, id lovee to see wot people wud writee about them!

Modern English at its finest, and just as readable as Shakespeare or Chaucer - anyone who struggled with them in school will know what I mean.

CalBoy

Mar 19, 2009, 06:52 PM

Anyway, this piece altogether is yet another example of the sterling quality of British journalism. ;) It would have been better however, if they also had a 12 year old in the family who had a child.

I'm sure they'll work it into the next issue. ;) In fact, they might have to cut you a check now. :p

Even if the story is bunk, it does raise a lot of interesting questions, which clearly many of us aren't ready to answer without resorting to stereotypes and pejoratives.

Iscariot

Mar 19, 2009, 09:24 PM

Good heavens what the hell is wrong with your newspapers :eek:.

The Sun also has footing in Canada, and I believe it even has a channel here.

Abstract

Mar 19, 2009, 09:31 PM

Modern English at its finest, and just as readable as Shakespeare or Chaucer - anyone who struggled with them in school will know what I mean.

Google translator couldn't convert it to English either.

Schtumple

Mar 19, 2009, 09:41 PM

Here's two of them, waiting for McD's to open.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/MacQuque.jpg

Not gunna lie, that clock, and the text looks pretty shopped... :rolleyes:

gnasher729

Mar 20, 2009, 11:10 AM

Hmm...

Now you have me thinking. Maybe that is a way to not work any more. Kind of like an early retirement. Ha ha!

BTW, wonder what their wedding photo looks like?

Is the fact that everyone buys widescreen TVs in any way related to this?

For example none of them actually look like they are too fat to work in, for example, a call centre.

The problem is not being able to work, but being able to find an employer willing to hire you.
And working in a place where they don't sit down all day would probably fix the whole problem in a year or two.

For example, a job delivering mail, just on a small round, that would work wonders. Start with half a mile a day and add to it gradually.

robbieduncan

Mar 20, 2009, 11:31 AM

And working in a place where they don't sit down all day would probably fix the whole problem in a year or two.

Or just getting their fat, lazy arses down the gym. That's what I do as I do sit down all day at work.

mkrishnan

Mar 20, 2009, 11:41 AM

And working in a place where they don't sit down all day would probably fix the whole problem in a year or two.

In some cases, that seems hard to believe... like take that fella who plays Hugo Hurley in Lost. Acting in an action/adventure series like that must be somewhat more physically active than our desk jobs. He's still morbidly obese, right? He might be fat, but he's certainly at least one example of someone who is quite fat and not at all lazy or stupid.

RedTomato

Mar 20, 2009, 12:49 PM

Is the fact that everyone buys widescreen TVs in any way related to this?

You might have a point there. Almost everybody I see with a widescreen TV has it wrongly set to show 4:3 images stretched out to fit the widescreen. Makes all the presenters look fat. Maybe that's what they imagine famous people to look like.

Many people just don't notice when widescreen TVs are set wrongly, but it leaps out to me. I've set up on my laptop various sample clips that are being shown at the wrong ratio, and show them to various people, and amazingly, most just cannot tell that a 4:3 image is stretched out wrongly.

I've been caught out once or twice. I think I happened to catch a model program, or the last olympic gymnastics, at a friend's house. I was thinking 'my god, these women look nice and curvy and sexy, nice to see that the agencies are finally changing their standards and rejecting the underweight waifs' .... when I realised .... yup it was a stretched image! They were actually your typical stickthin model or gymnast - not sexy to anyone except another stick insect.

I changed the channel to another program which happened to be a bodybuilding program (or was it olympic weightlifting?) - Bloody hell! Freaks of nature! Muscles wider than they're tall!

My mate couldn't detect anything wrong with the picture. Typical.

sushi

Mar 20, 2009, 06:49 PM

Is the fact that everyone buys widescreen TVs in any way related to this?
could be! :)

You might have a point there. Almost everybody I see with a widescreen TV has it wrongly set to show 4:3 images stretched out to fit the widescreen. Makes all the presenters look fat. Maybe that's what they imagine famous people to look like.

Many people just don't notice when widescreen TVs are set wrongly, but it leaps out to me. I've set up on my laptop various sample clips that are being shown at the wrong ratio, and show them to various people, and amazingly, most just cannot tell that a 4:3 image is stretched out wrongly.
This reminds me of a situation many moons ago. A large electronics store was using the movie Outbreak for it's demo movie on a variety of screens.

I kept asking them if they could make it so the movie looked normal and not stretched. The fellow kept trying to tell me that it was normal. Finally I say, you see that helicopter (there was a head shot of the helicopter)? "Yes," he replied. "Well, it's not round like a fat circle." "Yes, it is!" he replied. I said no, its shaped like this and I drew a quick sketch on some paper. Finally I got him to adjust the screens so that the movie looked correct. It was then very easy to evaluate the screens. However, the fellow indicated that to show the movie this way was wasting valuable screen space and thought that it should go back to the way it was. I just shook my head and left.

robbieduncan

Mar 21, 2009, 02:35 AM

However, the fellow indicated that to show the movie this way was wasting valuable screen space and thought that it should go back to the way it was. I just shook my head and left.

And that's why he's working at an electrical retailer...

sushi

Mar 21, 2009, 10:59 AM

And that's why he's working at an electrical retailer...
Snort.

What I find interesting is the number of people who prefer to view movies in full screen mode or stretched mode rather than the way the movie appears on screen. Even after showing some friends the difference, they went back to the full or stretched mode. Needless to say, I don't watch TV at their homes much.

For me, I want it to appear exactly like it did in the movie theater. I don't care if there are black bars on the bottom or sides. Personal choice I guess.

mkrishnan

Mar 21, 2009, 11:05 AM

Personal choice I guess.

And yet it seems impossible to leave it at that, doesn't it? Or why do I feel like I need to defend the fact that I watch 4:3 stretched on my HDTV? :o

thecritix

Mar 21, 2009, 11:24 AM

these fat bastards sicken me.

They need to lose some weight and get a job.

FAT FAT FAT FAT FAT SCUM

:rolleyes:

sushi

Mar 21, 2009, 11:30 AM

And yet it seems impossible to leave it at that, doesn't it? Or why do I feel like I need to defend the fact that I watch 4:3 stretched on my HDTV? :o
So you like looking at plump people and objects? :p

Heck, even with movies that are made with a very wide screen ratio, I still like to watch them that way even if the black bars are large on the top and bottom.

these fat bastards sicken me.

They need to lose some weight and get a job.
What?

You mean that you don't like your hard earned tax dollars supporting their couch potato lifestyle. ;)

mkrishnan

Mar 21, 2009, 11:37 AM

So you like looking at plump people and objects? :p

For whatever reason, I prefer to stretch horizontally if necessary but not vertically, so apparently, yes. ;) Maybe it's my way of maintaining some aspect of empathy towards overweight people? :p A concept that apparently is lost on some.

RedTomato

Mar 21, 2009, 12:28 PM

For whatever reason, I prefer to stretch horizontally if necessary but not vertically, so apparently, yes. ;) Maybe it's my way of maintaining some aspect of empathy towards overweight people? :p A concept that apparently is lost on some.

Yes, a bit more empathy and less kneejerk responses would be nice here.

I have to agree that most female presenters and models look more human when stretched horizontally. Is that a sad indictment of society's expectations of female celebrities?

Just went through a bit of hassle trying to get '4 on Demand' (UK online TV service) to work via IE on XP in VMWare Fusion. Now working, but it insists on showing 16:9 squeezed into 4:3. Odd seeing the skinny gits in Shameless become even more wasted and raddled.

Iscariot

Mar 21, 2009, 10:24 PM

So you like looking at plump people and objects? :p

His anaconda don't want none unless they've got buns, hun?

.Andy

Mar 21, 2009, 10:29 PM

His anaconda don't want none unless they've got buns, hun?
Shouldn't you be getting back to your side bends and sit-ups?

Cromulent

Mar 22, 2009, 02:29 AM

mkrishnan

Mar 22, 2009, 08:22 AM

Fat tax. I've said before and I'll say it again. We should tax fatty food in the same way as we tax cigarettes and alcohol. Oh and we need to get past this stupid idea that being fat is okay. It isn't.

I think the idea of taxing fatty food has some merit, with some concerns...

1) How likely is it that taxing fatty or junky (really, it's the "empty calories" junk food that's a problem more than high fat foods... foods like peanut butter or for that matter, butter for your bread, may be high in fat but not necessarily given over to misuse)... Anyway, how likely is it that taxing junk foods will reduce the disparity of availability of healthy foods? Particularly in the US, but I think increasingly elsewhere, as well, junk food is available in inner cities at very low prices, and healthy food is not nearly as available. Is there any case study of a place that taxed junk foods and achieved the desired objectives without creating other health problems?

If you tax the junk food, people may buy it less, but they still need access to nutrients. Food is fundamentally different from, say, cigarettes in this regard.

2) Even if you get rid of the disparity, I think there's no running around the fact that this is a tax that would extremely disproportionately affect the poor, even if it works. At the very minimum it ought to come along with some kind of stimulus to use the money to generate better shopping options for the poor.

3) This is somewhat unfair to those of us who are fighting against being underweight but meh, I guess I'll let that slide on behalf of us. :p

4) Your examples kind of prove the point that the public health intervention, like most public health interventions, is extremely small effect size but large number of benefited people. Cigarette taxation may have driven consumption down somewhat, but there is still tons of smoking out there. And the last I heard, alcohol related violence and drunk driving, or for that matter alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver, had hardly been eliminated like the Small Pox.

I am all for public health style interventions for obesity. I personally am possibly in favor of junk food taxes. I really like the initiatives in NYC and other places to push restaurants to provide nutritional data on all their offerings, and I think the few remaining exception categories of foods that are available in stores without nutritional information should also be stamped out. I just think being realistic about them is good.

RedTomato

Mar 22, 2009, 08:56 AM

Well, I was underweight for a while :)

Aiming at fats might be missing the target. I'm not a biologist, but it seems that fat is merely the storage of energy - it's not how the energy is transported in the body. Fat in the diet has to be broken down first, and transported through the body before being used.

So how is energy in the body transported? In the form of sugars.

I've seen it said that high sugar intake in the diet is the real reason for obesity, not fat. Simple sugars get transported directly through the blood and used either to lay down more fat, or for work in the muscles, without any of the tedious pre-processing that fats or complex sugars require.

The AMA and the WHO have tried time and time again to issue reports that sugar is also a high cause of obesity, but have been frustrated by lobbying from the sugar companies. These sugar companies are extremely rich, and form a very powerful lobby. There isn't a similar situation with fats, so less lobbying from that direction.

Hope that clarifies some of the situation about fats and sugars.

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 09:05 AM

Fat tax. I've said before and I'll say it again. We should tax fatty food in the same way as we tax cigarettes and alcohol.

Would you tax foods that are almost all fat? Like cheese, for instance? How would you tax restaurant food where it is prepared from various ingredients? Would a salad with a rich dressing be taxed more than one without? What about other foods that are high in fats like eggs? Plenty of fat in the yolks. Olive oil; good for you, but high in fat. Or are we going to discriminate between bad fats and good fats?

The difference between cigs/alcohol and foods, is that unprocessed food is not labelled.

EricNau

Mar 22, 2009, 01:12 PM

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 01:18 PM

You can tax the unhealthy ingredients, leading the establishment to increase the price on unhealthy menu items, no?

What's 'unhealthier': olive oil or heavily marbled red meat? Which contains more fat per gram?

EricNau

Mar 22, 2009, 01:23 PM

What's 'unhealthier': olive oil or heavily marbled red meat? Which contains more fat per gram?
Haven't a clue. :p

I'm not trying to advocate a "fat tax"; I was merely answering your query about the way in which prepared restaurant foods would be taxed.

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 01:27 PM

I'm just trying to demonstrate the potential minefield of taxing fatty foods solely on the basis of fat content. What about baby formula? That's pretty high in fat too.

CorvusCamenarum

Mar 22, 2009, 01:51 PM

mkrishnan

Mar 22, 2009, 01:58 PM

[Refined] sugar, on the other hand, is a relatively new introduction (300-400 years?) to the human diet.

Crystallized sugar is older than that... it's not really clear to me even yet that the refinement of sugar is the huge culprit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#History

I would say that, were such a tax feasible, it would have to tax classes of food by delivery mode / category, rather than strictly contents, even were this not wholly fair. For instance, somewhat arbitrarily creating a definition of what constitutes a "fast food" restaurant, or an unhealthy one, perhaps by some standards regarding the average menu items (which would be nice, in that those restaurants could choose to offer more healthy foods and evade the tax), and other relatively well-defined categories such as packaged snack foods, even if some packaged snack foods are "healthy." Perhaps, again, there could be some system to identify a subset of healthy snack foods that evade the tax, allowing manufacturers incentive to change.

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 02:04 PM

By the way, in the UK, we already tax certain foods. VAT, a sales tax, currently at 15% only is applied to foods excluding for example:

raw meat and fish
vegetables and fruit
cereals, nuts and pulses
culinary herbs
bread, biscuits and cakes

As well as other foods... but it gets complex. If anyone is interested in the nitty-gritty, fill yer boots (http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageTravel_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000118&propertyType=document#P19_850). :D

Cromulent

Mar 22, 2009, 02:11 PM

Would you tax foods that are almost all fat? Like cheese, for instance? How would you tax restaurant food where it is prepared from various ingredients? Would a salad with a rich dressing be taxed more than one without? What about other foods that are high in fats like eggs? Plenty of fat in the yolks. Olive oil; good for you, but high in fat. Or are we going to discriminate between bad fats and good fats?

The difference between cigs/alcohol and foods, is that unprocessed food is not labelled.

Fax people generally don't get fat on salads with rich dressings. I'm going to be extremely controversial here and hope it doesn't come across as too rude, but the people who generally get in the situation posted by the OP are working class uneducated / poorly educated people that have no idea about nutrition.

There is difference between natural fats such as Eggs which are extremely good for you in considered amounts and crap like McDonalds. People need to make an intelligent decision, anything like Chocolate, sweets, fast food, take aways whatever should be taxed. Decent food (even if it is fatty) should probably be left alone. Most fat people just eat crap anyway.

Edit : When I talk about a fat tax I mean in addition to VAT. So a total tax of say 25 - 30% on a McDonalds meal seems fair to me.

mkrishnan

Mar 22, 2009, 02:15 PM

By the way, in the UK, we already tax certain foods. VAT, a sales tax, currently at 15% only is applied to foods excluding for example

In the majority of our states that have sales tax, a similar system applies (and I do remember the fascinating story of the taxation of Jaffa Cakes ;) ). The Illinois version exempts:

food that has not been prepared for immediate consumption, such as most food sold at grocery stores, excluding hot foods, alcoholic beverages, and soft drinks

trule

Mar 22, 2009, 02:16 PM

As well as other foods... but it gets complex. If anyone is interested in the nitty-gritty, fill yer boots (http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageTravel_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_000118&propertyType=document#P19_850). :D

You have to wonder, with such an exhaustive list, if someone in the UK government has too much time on their hands ... the distinction between taxed and not taxed in section 3 becomes increasingly absurd the more you read.

I would rather pay 15% on all food just to keep it simple. It must take an army of public servants to manage the current arrangement, I'm sure they could be doing something productive in the real economy, or nothing, either of which would be an improvement on the current situation.
:rolleyes:

mkrishnan

Mar 22, 2009, 02:22 PM

Fax people generally don't get fat on salads with rich dressings. I'm going to be extremely controversial here and hope it doesn't come across as too rude, but the people who generally get in the situation posted by the OP are working class uneducated / poorly educated people that have no idea about nutrition.

There is difference between natural fats such as Eggs which are extremely good for you in considered amounts and crap like McDonalds. People need to make an intelligent decision, anything like Chocolate, sweets, fast food, take aways whatever should be taxed. Decent food (even if it is fatty) should probably be left alone. Most fat people just eat crap anyway.

Now that I've several times already said that I don't necessarily oppose a tax on foods that contribute to obesity, I would ask that it at least conform to empirical scientific data and not merely theorizing.

For your first point, the strongest argument against this viewpoint would be the almost complete lack of efficacy in nutritional education interventions in reducing obesity. The best behavioral obesity management interventions, which typically are interdisciplinary and offer training, support, and monitoring of food consumption and exercise, have very low success rates. But in comparison, nutritional interventions are abysmally useless. This would seem to argue against the likelihood that ignorance is the primary driver behind obesity.

As for your second point, while I think it's generally fair, and it's probably where these taxes would most sensibly start, studies have also shown repeatedly that diets of all kinds of configurations work as long as there is a restriction of consumption -- the fact that all the "Atkins," "South Beach," low fat, and merely overall caloric restriction diets work roughly equally well makes it very hard to really believe that there are so much problem foods as there are problematic consumption patterns. In rich countries, there are also numerous obese people who are wealthier, and I think if we look at obesity historically (and historically in the rest of the world also), the first wave of obesity problems in the developed world consisted largely of richer people who were getting obese on large quantities of "fine" foods, which would generally be considered exceptionally healthy in the right quantities.

arkitect

Mar 22, 2009, 02:23 PM

…anything like Chocolate, sweets, fast food, take aways whatever should be taxed.

*gasp*

Bloody hell — it already costs me more than £8 for a slab of Amedei Porcelana!

:o :(

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 02:35 PM

Fax people generally don't get fat on salads with rich dressings. I'm going to be extremely controversial here and hope it doesn't come across as too rude, but the people who generally get in the situation posted by the OP are working class uneducated / poorly educated people that have no idea about nutrition.

There is difference between natural fats such as Eggs which are extremely good for you in considered amounts and crap like McDonalds. People need to make an intelligent decision, anything like Chocolate, sweets, fast food, take aways whatever should be taxed. Decent food (even if it is fatty) should probably be left alone. Most fat people just eat crap anyway.

Edit : When I talk about a fat tax I mean in addition to VAT. So a total tax of say 25 - 30% on a McDonalds meal seems fair to me.

Yeah, bash the poor and the working class. I'll just ignore the existence of my previous colleagues who earned lots of money and had degrees, and were obese and clearly have far more choice in their local shopping than being stuck on some estate on the edges of town. Furthermore, when you don't have much money and you look at the price of a packet of cheap padded-out fish fingers versus a piece of fresh fish, it's no choice at all. Try living healthily on £60 a week for a few months, after you've paid all your bills.

And you unwittingly demonstrate what a minefield a fat tax would be. You say chocolate. What about dark chocolate that doesn't contain a lot of added fat and sugar? Fast food? What about a vegetarian sub? Chicken kebab? A proper pizza vs. a PizzaHut one? What the hell counts as 'decent food'?

I would rather pay 15% on all food just to keep it simple. It must take an army of public servants to manage the current arrangement, I'm sure they could be doing something productive in the real economy, or nothing, either of which would be an improvement on the current situation.
:rolleyes:

While I appreciate your sentiment in terms of complexity, because it also has similar parallels in printing and publishing over here, it makes sense to have exemptions on certain things, particularly as VAT law is also tied up with EU VAT law. It is not Customs and Excise who have to worry, it is suppliers and producers.

trule

Mar 22, 2009, 02:44 PM

Fat tax. I've said before and I'll say it again. We should tax fatty food in the same way as we tax cigarettes and alcohol. Oh and we need to get past this stupid idea that being fat is okay. It isn't.

Do you work for the Government? Only someone in the Government could possibly want *more* taxes :eek:

I doubt fatty foods are the problem. Take a look at the following chart, notice that increase in HFCS correlates quite closely with the start of the fat epidemic (mid 80's). Also notice that a general increase in sugar consumption occurs over the same period which correlates with increased consumption of processed foods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usda_sweeteners.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Sweetener_consumption_patterns

HFCS comes from *corn*, who is corns best friend? Farm subsidy paying governments. So, rather than raise taxes on fat, why not remove subsidies, which will reduce corn production, which will reduce HFCS, which will reduce unnatural sugars in food, which will make people smaller.

But if you worked in Government that would be putting yourself out of a job ... :D

Cromulent

Mar 22, 2009, 02:54 PM

Yeah, bash the poor and the working class.

I did clearly state "in the situation posted by the OP". But yeah I will as I think it is generally true. The poor and working class (one and the same?) generally are the ones who buy lots of fast food.

I'll just ignore the existence of my previous colleagues who earned lots of money and had degrees, and were obese and clearly have far more choice in their local shopping than being stuck on some estate on the edges of town.

A fat tax can't beat people who are determined to get fat on healthy food. The only thing we can do is discourage those that go about it in the most obvious manner (i.e McDonalds etc). While I think rich people who get fat are many times worse than poor people who get fat, they do contribute more tax in the long run so in effect they are still contributing to the increased burden that obese people place on the NHS.

Furthermore, when you don't have much money and you look at the price of a packet of cheap padded-out fish fingers versus a piece of fresh fish, it's no choice at all. Try living healthily on £60 a week for a few months, after you've paid all your bills.

A packet of fish fingers is worth nothing nutritionally. Fresh fish will always beat it, failing that you can just get frozen fish which is quite reasonably priced and much better than fish fingers.

What the hell counts as 'decent food'?

Ingredients that you then prepare yourself.

trule

Mar 22, 2009, 02:59 PM

While I appreciate your sentiment in terms of complexity, because it also has similar parallels in printing and publishing over here, it makes sense to have exemptions on certain things, particularly as VAT law is also tied up with EU VAT law.

Yes, its a political element to have reduced or no VAT on basic foods, its the only way a Government can get such an unpopular tax through (socialists, generally controlling power want more tax in general but not on staple foods). I don't mind socialists, its just that they should not be running a country, or writing its tax laws.

It is not Customs and Excise who have to worry, it is suppliers and producers.

This is part of the problem of complex taxes like VAT, the burden of tax collection is placed on the suppliers and producers. They essentially become tax collectors for the Government and have to adherer to a raft of laws being constantly drawn up by Government officials who have no concept of how a productive economy functions and the unproductive burden that their regulation creates (lawyers accountants etc involved in compliance activities - all non productive).

Here, from the list:

No VAT
Sweetened dried fruit held out for sale as snacking and home baking

VAT
Sweetened dried fruit held out for sale as confectionery/snacking

... each supplier and producer has to read the whole absurd list to find out what rate of VAT they should apply. It is truly absurd.

Another example:

No VAT
Tea, maté, herbal teas and similar products, and preparations and extracts of these (but this does not include soft drinks containing tea as only one of several ingredients)

VAT
Purgative and laxative “teas”, such as senna, and similar medicinal teas.

And another example, its actually completely ridiculous:
No VAT
Prawn crackers made from tapioca

VAT
Prawn crackers made from cereals

Totally nuts :D

RedTomato

Mar 22, 2009, 03:58 PM

Crystallized sugar is older than that... it's not really clear to me even yet that the refinement of sugar is the huge culprit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#History

Thanks for that link. I found it an interesting read. What I gather is that in terms of human history, crystallised sugar is still a recent invention. The earliest processes go back to AD350, which is nothing, really. I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans or Greeks knew about crystallised sugar. That still makes it a newcomer.

We as a species have an inborn craving for sugar - it's instant energy. Monkeys will beat on tree trunks all day just to extract a tiny bit of honey - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7949335.stm

From Mkrishnan's wiki link, I also gather that crystallised sugar has historically been extremely expensive, sometimes worth its weight in gold. (The wealth of the early USA, and of the British Empire, to a large extent was based on sugar.) Hence sugar was used very sparingly in cooking.

Only recently has sugar become a mass-produced cheap commodity and used in vast amounts in everything. With consequent problems.

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 04:33 PM

I don't mind socialists, its just that they should not be running a country, or writing its tax laws.

That is another subject entirely, and one I'm quite happy to cross swords with on the understanding that your definition of socialism may differ from the generally accepted term.

I'll just conveniently ignore the 'socialist' governments I've lived under in different countries over the years that have produced better outcomes on a number of internationally-accepted yardsticks for a larger number of people. Remember, the entire hooha of this 'credit crunch' and consequent global economic collapse was not created in Europe. ;)

Benguitar

Mar 22, 2009, 04:38 PM

Right, that does it. let's kill 'em.

Yeah, I said it.

ROFL!

This just shows the snowball effect of people that are too LAZY to work and now they use their weight as an excuse.

They are getting NO sympathy from me.

iJohnHenry

Mar 22, 2009, 04:41 PM

Ah, a new word learned today. Pulses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_(legume)). :D

trule

Mar 22, 2009, 05:01 PM

That is another subject entirely, and one I'm quite happy to cross swords with on the understanding that your definition of socialism may differ from the generally accepted term.

I'll just conveniently ignore the 'socialist' governments I've lived under in different countries over the years that have produced better outcomes on a number of internationally-accepted yardsticks for a larger number of people. Remember, the entire hooha of this 'credit crunch' and consequent global economic collapse was not created in Europe. ;)

Pure socialism, such as in East Germany, the USA or UK ;)

Edit: I should point out that the Socialist UK government elements came up with that completely absurd VAT classification for Foods. My objection is not taxing the rich to benefit society in general, which can be argued as being quite reasonable, its the silly taxation and its impact on the real economy. Keep in mind that someone in government had to decide why one type of prawn cracker was VAT exempt and another type of prawn cracker was not, and then hundreds of suppliers and producers have to determine, document, collect, count, report, refund and process said VAT. Please explain how *that* makes the world a better place ... there comes a point where one has to question the amount of Government we subject ourselves too, and if this could be reduced without negative effect.

Blue Velvet

Mar 22, 2009, 07:42 PM

Keep in mind that someone in government had to decide why one type of prawn cracker was VAT exempt and another type of prawn cracker was not, and then hundreds of suppliers and producers have to determine, document, collect, count, report, refund and process said VAT.

I suspect, without any evidence at all, that key ingredients like soya might attract overall duties which then impact on the classification of products... a top-down approach, rather than a bottom-up approach where every product under the sun is examined and classified.

Coming back to the topic, I'm torn and am happy to admit my hypocrisy. A small but ugly part of me thinks 'fat lazy bastards, go get a job' and then another larger part of me, shaped by life experience, is conscious that the issue is more complex than that, involving all sorts of aspects of nutrition, class etc... and besides, no-one here has yet stated a wish to swap their lives with them, suggesting that most of us here secretly think 'There but for the grace of god, go I'.

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 04:09 AM

You force people to go on a diet (with proper guidance mind you) and to keep the weight off, otherwise they loose all health benefits. See how quickly they change their tune.

So, you're proposing that the government should force obese people to lose weight by denying them medical treatment? For instance, fat people would lose the ability to go to emergency rooms for broken limbs? Or they'd be denied treatment for life-threatening conditions, let alone psychiatric problems like clinical depression? Or if they were in a car accident, trapped inside a car, the ambulance crew would only save and release those who were of an approved weight for their size?

What a vote-winner.

robbieduncan

Mar 23, 2009, 05:31 AM

So, you're proposing that the government should force obese people to lose weight by denying them medical treatment? ... Or they'd be denied treatment for life-threatening conditions...

Sorry for the extreme editing of your post, but I think this was actually proposed/possibly even in force already. Of course the truly massive amongst us already often find they are too fat to be operated on thus preventing them being treated for certain conditions.

Off topic: this is all getting a bit political, perhaps it should move into PRSI?

Kardashian

Mar 23, 2009, 05:34 AM

As someone who lost almost 8 stone the year before last (I've since put on a stone, but I'm working hard to lose it. I weigh 14 now), I think this is absolutely disgusting.

I was never anywhere near their size, and I actually ate relatively healthy, it was the lack of exercise and times I ate etc. But I was unhappy, and hated looking at myself.

How they can get up every single morning, looking like they do, sitting on their fat a*ses watching television is beyond me.

I remember seeing a clip of the Mother-ship on YouTube, screaming all odds at Simon Cowell for not putting her marsh-mallow of a daughter through.

Babe, you should be applauding Simon Cowell for earning what he does. He's keeping fat, useless lards like you in the lifestyle you've become accustom too.

That's probably why they stuck her on the X-Factor.

"We won't work, so let's make her sing. £1M in the bank and we'll continue to receive benefits".

Disgusting scum.

.Andy

Mar 23, 2009, 05:34 AM

Ah, a new word learned today. Pulses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_(legume)). :D
That's the first rule of vegetarianism: Anything with a pulse.

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 05:44 AM

Disgusting scum.

Another one who thinks they're better than others. Please crawl back under your rock.

.Andy

Mar 23, 2009, 05:50 AM

Kardashian

Mar 23, 2009, 05:50 AM

Another one who thinks they're better than others. Please crawl back under your rock.

BV, this is a prime example of what I said regarding our differences (posted in the Jade Goody thread.)

There I have applauded you for what you've said, defending that poor soul. Yet here you've actually been quite rude towards me.

I hope you read what I've written in the other thread, maybe you'll change your tune about me, and not think I have a complex about myself and that I need to crawl back under my rock.

Kardashian

Mar 23, 2009, 05:51 AM

And it's riling up people like you that makes journalists print this tripe. With the attention this story has bought I expect they'll make a good fortune doing the glossy rag and interview circuit. Whether it's all an act or not....

I completely agree.

The weight issue thing gets me only because I worked so hard to not become what I see in that picture.

I'm ashamed to say I even reacted, TBH.

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 05:55 AM

BV, this is a prime example of what I said regarding our differences (posted in the Jade Goody thread.)

No-one has the right to call others disgusting scum. The fastest route to prejudice and hatred is depersonalising people.

You wanted to be treated with dignity? Treat others the same. Walk a mile in their shoes.

Kardashian

Mar 23, 2009, 06:05 AM

No-one has the right to call others disgusting scum. The fastest route to prejudice and hatred is depersonalising people.

You wanted to be treated with dignity? Treat others the same. Walk a mile in their shoes.
I do see where you're coming from, but the weight issue for me just strikes a chord.

I shouldn't be so judgmental off the bat but just seeing them sat around the TV, proud of it.. it just angers me.

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 06:14 AM

I do see where you're coming from, but the weight issue for me just strikes a chord.

Then that's your problem. Funny how we detest and are repelled by the things that we secretly fear might happen to us. Being infirm, watching our weight...

As I've said before in this thread, not a single person here would trade their life for theirs. So why the hatred? Does it make people feel better, more virtuous themselves, to find someone else in the pecking order, to reassure themselves that at least they're not like them...

arkitect

Mar 23, 2009, 06:15 AM

So why the hatred? Does it make people feel better, more virtuous themselves, to find someone else in the pecking order, to reassure themselves that at least they're not like them...

Now that is what you call "hitting the nail on the head."

Kardashian

Mar 23, 2009, 06:45 AM

Then that's your problem. Funny how we detest and are repelled by the things that we secretly fear might happen to us. Being infirm, watching our weight...

As I've said before in this thread, not a single person here would trade their life for theirs. So why the hatred? Does it make people feel better, more virtuous themselves, to find someone else in the pecking order, to reassure themselves that at least they're not like them...

No. It makes me think "that's where our tax is going? Great".

Anyway, we're not going to agree on anything you and I.

So I'm leaving it at that. Good day :)

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 06:58 AM

No. It makes me think "that's where our tax is going? Great".

Yes, the entire annual tax revenue of the nation is going to this family. And why do you speak on behalf of 'our' tax? I have no problems with my 5p or whatever going to them. They're going to spend it anyway, so it all ends up in someone else's pocket regardless of where it goes.

No, you're just uncomfortable about them and it makes you feel better to have a go at someone who you feel is beneath you. A leopard doesn't change its spots, Josh.

robbieduncan

Mar 23, 2009, 07:44 AM

Yes, the entire annual tax revenue of the nation is going to this family. And why do you speak on behalf of 'our' tax? I have no problems with my 5p or whatever going to them. They're going to spend it anyway, so it all ends up in someone else's pocket regardless of where it goes.

Well I do have a problem with it going to support groups of people who have no intention of ever contributing to the society which the expect to support them. It's the sense of entitlement they have that really rubs my up the wrong way...

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 07:50 AM

It's the sense of entitlement they have that really rubs my up the wrong way...

Well, I'm more personally perturbed by the sense of entitlement possessed by boardroom failures, golden handcuffs and bonuses for failed RBS bankers, £20 million quid worth of taxpayers money to RBS workers alone for helping destroy their company and dragging the global economy into a ditch. There's no comparison in my book.

robbieduncan

Mar 23, 2009, 07:58 AM

Well, I'm more personally perturbed by the sense of entitlement possessed by boardroom failures, golden handcuffs and bonuses for failed RBS bankers, £20 million quid worth of taxpayers money to RBS workers alone for helping destroy their company and dragging the global economy into a ditch. There's no comparison in my book.

Two wrongs don't make a right...

In fact I'd say I'd rather spend the money helping companies/individuals who at least tried to generate wealth that those who just try and generate waste.

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 08:22 AM

Two wrongs don't make a right...

That's got nothing to do with it. I know which group of people who are getting more for screwing things up on a far larger scale for a larger group of people.

In fact I'd say I'd rather spend the money helping companies/individuals who at least tried to generate wealth that those who just try and generate waste.

Sorry, but being bailed out by the government because you've trashed the company means you are not generating wealth for anyone. And what do you mean by generating waste? They spend the money they've got on elements of the economy, like everyone else. Once again, people are blindly comfortable about social support for the rich, rather than for the poor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_for_the_rich_and_capitalism_for_the_poor)

I know you work for a bank and you'll naturally support those like you without considering their failures, but jeez Robbie, go and live like that if you think it's a laugh and a cushy life. They've got diabetes, heart conditions, epilepsy and asthma. They're stuck in front of telly all day. It sounds like most of their money goes straight to the supermarket who then profits from the state. What an existence.

It doesn't bother me one little bit if they're happy. They're not committing any crimes and they take nothing away from me or my life so why should I resent them?

Besides, anyone who knows anything about the benefit system knows that it's not that straightforward maintaining this kind of benefit use for years on end. I suspect the Daily Mail is not telling the whole story, which would be consistent with their usual schtick of bashing certain groups in society. I refuse to get manipulated into fake outrage by anything a rag like the Mail has to say.

robbieduncan

Mar 23, 2009, 08:36 AM

Sorry, but being bailed out by the government because you've trashed the company means you are not generating wealth for anyone. And what do you mean by generating waste? They spend the money they've got on elements of the economy, like everyone else. Once again, people are blindly comfortable about social support for the rich, rather than for the poor.

I have no problems with those who messed things up, causing this financial crisis, being held responsible for their actions. But I fail to see how allowing the entire system to come crashing down would have helped this country, the world in general, the poor or anyone else.

I know you work for a bank and you'll naturally support those like you without considering their failures, but jeez Robbie, go and live like that if you think it's a laugh and a cushy life.

Most bank employees (like me) had nothing to do with this crisis. We do not, and did not, make policy, lend money, have any input to the calculation and weighting of risk or any of the other decisions or policies that were at fault. In addition most of us did not over-commit ourselves financially, borrow beyond our means, so actually had less input to this than many of the public out there who blame us. And at no point have I said that I think it's a laugh or a cushy life.

They've got diabetes, heart conditions, epilepsy and asthma. They're stuck in front of telly all day. It sounds like most of their money goes straight to the supermarket who then profits from the state. What an existence.

Whilst it sounds very harsh they (the parents) seem to have brought most of these medical conditions on themselves. I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the children who, most likely, have these conditions too directly as a consequence of their parents. I disagree that they are stuck in front of the TV. None of them are actually so huge they can't leave the house. They choose to be stuck in front of the TV. In fact the father openly admits to loving it.

Besides, anyone who knows anything about the benefit system knows that it's not that straightforward maintaining this kind of benefit use for years on end. I suspect the Daily Mail is not telling the whole story, which would be consistent with their usual schtick of bashing certain groups in society. I refuse to get manipulated into fake outrage by anything a rag like the Mail has to say.

The Daily Mail cannot be trusted. I fully agree with that. I have no idea how easy or not it is to maintain a fully state funded lifestyle: I am fortunate enough to have not claimed benefits (yet).

My biggest issue with all of this is that no effort appears to be made to get them out of the situation they find themselves in. If I was in that situation I would be doing everything to get out. But they do not appear to be. In fact all they seem to want is more money from the state. But the state is not blameless here: it should be providing help, assistance, and yes encouragement to get these people out of their house, into jobs and living richer (I don't mean this financially necessarily) lives.

Tosser

Mar 23, 2009, 08:41 AM

Cromulent

Mar 23, 2009, 08:47 AM

barkmonster

Mar 23, 2009, 08:58 AM

I would assume so. We spend about £120 roughly a week on food (for 3 people) and I'm about 10 stone. God knows how you can get so large on such a small amount of money.

I'm guessing it's because they cook everything in lard and live on oven chips and frozen pizza and other people eat a variety of foods and cook in olive oil!

skunk

Mar 23, 2009, 09:03 AM

It doesn't bother me one little bit if they're happy.I very much doubt that they are.

Blue Velvet

Mar 23, 2009, 09:10 AM

But I fail to see how allowing the entire system to come crashing down would have helped this country, the world in general, the poor or anyone else.

Agreed. But this has nothing to do with bonuses. Many of those people should be grateful they've still got jobs. Seriously.

Most bank employees (like me) had nothing to do with this crisis. We do not, and did not, make policy, lend money, have any input to the calculation and weighting of risk or any of the other decisions or policies that were at fault.

That wasn't my point and you know it. I know perfectly well that's not your thing, but you're still inclined to see banking employees more favorably, initially excusing their errors by saying they were trying to create wealth when all they were doing was driving the car into the ditch.

Whilst it sounds very harsh they (the parents) seem to have brought most of these medical conditions on themselves.

What's done is done. This is what they have and who am I to point fingers at them? I wouldn't wish a heart condition on anyone. And I'm extremely reluctant to take the Mail's word for all of that as being specifically caused by their obesity, especially the epilepsy. Their doctors wouldn't have told the Mail; they're under strict confidentiality... and their doctors will have to have seen quite a lot of them to consistently qualify for these benefits.

I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the children who, most likely, have these conditions too directly as a consequence of their parents.

Fair enough too. Who knows how the parents came to be this way? The article says they haven't worked in 11 years. What happened before then?

All sorts of people make poor life decisions or just as possible, a period of redundancy led to weight-gain and a vicious spiral. We don't have the facts to judge these people, especially to call them degenerate or scum.

I disagree that they are stuck in front of the TV. None of them are actually so huge they can't leave the house. They choose to be stuck in front of the TV. In fact the father openly admits to loving it.

Being stuck in front of the telly was a turn of phrase. If they love it, I feel even more sorry for them. I remember what daytime telly was like. :D

The Daily Mail cannot be trusted. I fully agree with that. I have no idea how easy or not it is to maintain a fully state funded lifestyle: I am fortunate enough to have not claimed benefits (yet).

It's not that easy. Or to be more accurate, it's difficult making it look easy. Besides, it gets complex. I had a friend for a while in his mid-50s who was on incapacity benefit because he'd had a triple heart bypass... but being mostly sedentary, he put on weight while losing his fitness and within months, he couldn't walk more than 20-30 yards without being completely out of breath. He became less well after being out of work for some time and routes to recovery became more difficult. He died about a year later.

My biggest issue with all of this is that no effort appears to be made to get them out of the situation they find themselves in.

Putting the kids to one side because they're clearly a result of their upbringing and environment, once things have got to the stage of heart disease and the conditions that they have, I'm not qualified to give medical advice on where to start.

But as I said, I don't really care. You and others have an issue with it; I don't. I've got other things to worry about. Let them live their lives, they're not hurting me.

stevento

Mar 23, 2009, 06:43 PM

I bet if they lost all benefits from the government, they would change their tune real quick and get jobs. Surprising what a hungry belly can do to motivate you.

On a side note, just think of all those lucky tax payers working hard to make a living and to pay taxes so these folks don't have to work. Lovely system.
I agree. I don't know how Gov't benefits work over there, here in the USA

1. i see people that size working everyday
2. that argument would never warrant any benefits
3. if it did, unemployment runs out in 3 months. they'd be broke.

and as for the hungry bellies, i think they'd survive for a while...

iJohnHenry

Mar 23, 2009, 06:59 PM

and as for the hungry bellies, i think they'd survive for a while...

3 days without water, six weeks without food, although that last number can be modified. :rolleyes:

CalBoy

Mar 23, 2009, 07:17 PM

I agree. I don't know how Gov't benefits work over there, here in the USA

1. i see people that size working everyday
2. that argument would never warrant any benefits
3. if it did, unemployment runs out in 3 months. they'd be broke.

and as for the hungry bellies, i think they'd survive for a while...

Social Security Disability benefits would kick in if they were certifiably disabled by their weight, which I think is the case in this (probably fake) story.

neiltc13

Mar 23, 2009, 07:19 PM

This article shows a lot of what is wrong with the current Government in the UK. They're far too willing to support people who don't need it.

Thankfully, people are taking notice and it seems that the Conservatives will be elected at the next general election. We need to stop having honest, hard working single people punished for doing no wrong and start forcing these lazy, horrible people into doing something about their problems.

I live in Gordon Brown's constituency and as much as I resent them, I will be voting for the Scottish National Party at the next UK general election. SNP will never get a majority in the UK Parliament, so a vote for them counts only as a vote against Labour here, where my party of choice (Conservative) don't stand a chance.

iJohnHenry

Mar 23, 2009, 07:20 PM

which I think is the case in this (probably fake) story.

You suspect disinformation?? It would not surprise me, for a variety of reasons.

skunk

Mar 23, 2009, 07:29 PM

This article shows a lot of what is wrong with the current Government in the UK. They're far too willing to support people who don't need it.The article shows nothing but an unhealthy obsession with anecdotal tutting.

Iscariot

Mar 24, 2009, 01:04 PM

it5five

Mar 24, 2009, 02:06 PM

Sorry to be somewhat off-topic here, but did I misread what they spend on food? Did they spend 50£/week on food? That's around two thirds of what my gf and I use per week, and we're not, well, obese – or even slighty overweight. Was that a typo, or do they shop really, really cheap places?

My girlfriend and I spend a little less than 50£/week on food (weekly grocery bill is ~$80 USD). I never understood how two people can spend more than that on food, and we don't even buy processed junk. We buy loads of fruits and vegetables every week and don't eat/drink anything with HFCS. Although, both of us are vegetarians, so maybe not buying meat saves us a good deal of money? We shop at a normal grocery store and everything. Are food prices just that much more in the UK?

Cromulent

Mar 24, 2009, 02:29 PM

My girlfriend and I spend a little less than 50£/week on food (weekly grocery bill is ~$80 USD). I never understood how two people can spend more than that on food, and we don't even buy processed junk. We buy loads of fruits and vegetables every week and don't eat/drink anything with HFCS. Although, both of us are vegetarians, so maybe not buying meat saves us a good deal of money? We shop at a normal grocery store and everything. Are food prices just that much more in the UK?

Yep. We do tend to buy decent food though (Sirloin steak, Salmon etc etc).

mkrishnan

Mar 24, 2009, 03:32 PM

Some of the key ingredients in junk food (high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated soybean oil, milk, eggs, rice etc) are subsidized by the government, subsidies that healthier foods like many fruits and vegetables don't enjoy. Taxation would be a very sticky situation to try and navigate, but changes in which foods receive hefty subsidizing could lower the prices of healthy food and raise the prices of junk food in a more even manner.

This is a really interesting point. On the soybean front, particularly, it's a tricky matter because of the disagreements over using farmland for fuel generation (which I personally think can be a good idea... I would like to suck up a little of that soybean oil as biodiesel for the Jetta TDI I want to buy later this year ;) ).

P.S. I thought 50 pounds a week was a lot for groceries, but then I guess I eat out a fair amount. I probably spend more than the equivalent ($75USD) on food per week, but sadly most of it in restaurants and the cafeteria.

Tosser

Mar 24, 2009, 04:28 PM

My girlfriend and I spend a little less than 50£/week on food (weekly grocery bill is ~$80 USD). I never understood how two people can spend more than that on food, and we don't even buy processed junk. We buy loads of fruits and vegetables every week and don't eat/drink anything with HFCS. Although, both of us are vegetarians, so maybe not buying meat saves us a good deal of money? We shop at a normal grocery store and everything. Are food prices just that much more in the UK?

And Denmark. Or perhaps it's the other way around – food is pretty cheap in the US.
I eat meat (my gf is a vegetarian), and we spent a tad more. Meat is expensive, though. Especially if you want the good stuff and not some chicken from a cage, lol.