The UK has previously been described as the most obese country in Western Europe.
When government looks to impose new regulations and fines, they are looking to use violence to try and solve a problem they've identified in society. It is violence because it is force that is being applied, via a central organization with a monopoly on coercion, to bring about the change they seek; threats of wrongdoing and consequences that must be faced. If you go against their edicts, the effect of that decision can be severe, you will face the consequence of being subjected to violence (in some form) in-return for your disobedience.
To try and deal with their “problem” of obesity, they've come up with the idea to impose calorie restrictions on various food items.
The “problem”...
Should it be the business of the government to tell us how and what to eat? That seems to violate our basic liberty and free choice.
If we have made the decision to eat poorly and we are obese, then is it the business of our friends and family to impose their views on us and try to deal with that problem? Or the government? Some might say yes, at least for our friends or family, because they are acting out of love and concern for our health. However, you certainly wouldn't go next door and try to tell your neighbor how to eat, would you? We can recognize in those scenarios our limited authority in telling others how to live their life and what they should be eating and whether or not it is a “problem” to us if they have decided to eat too much. Why is it okay to attempt this level of control, in telling others how to live, when it's a large group of people who've been lumped together, say the obese crowd? Now, all of a sudden we find it acceptable to try and impose various restrictions that will guide others into eating what we think is acceptable.
What is “healthy” for one individual also might not necessarily be healthy for the next.
Our food choices are an extension of our personal responsibility, if we want to consume 10 pizzas tonight then we should have the freedom to. Perhaps the government is trying to solve a “problem” that shouldn't be a “problem” for them in the first place.
For millions in the UK, maybe they could find that they might be able to purchase healthier food items if they had more income and were taxed less. What about that as a solution? This doesn't mean that you cannot eat healthy however if you are living on a strict budget, though many might suggest that eating frugally as such would require that you make most, if not all, of your meals at home. Cooking your meals at home is a habit and unfortunately for many people today, their preference for convenience has them opting for a myriad of other food solutions rather than cooking their own.
While those pushing for these calorie restrictions on various food items might have good intentions behind their efforts, in wanting to help people to make better food choices, the policies are almost comical in how misguided they are.
