This House would ban the promotion of diets

Dieting is a medical choice and should be treated  as such; advertising the available options rather than discussing this with a doctor means that people do not have all of the available information and cannot make their decision in a safe environment.

In comparable areas such as giving up smoking, controlling drinking, making decisions about exercise, knowledge about inoculations before travel and so forth, we prize medical expertise. The diet industry in the UK is worth £2bn[1] (it's $61bn in the US) and is marked out by allowing the same people to tell us that we are sick in the first place and then tell us the cure and then do it all again when the solution didn't work.

Generally accepted medical opinion is that this is a slow process with miracle cures both unlikely to work in the first place and, where they do, more unlikely to last. In some cases the dieting may even threaten health. For example French doctors have criticised the Dukan diet, Dr Boris Hansel for example says "There are real risks … infertility, sleep apnoea, high blood pressure, type-two diabetes, liver disease or cardiovascular problems. Following this diet is not harmless; it could cause real health problems" but its endorsement by celebrities mean that many will ignore such warnings or never even hear of them.[2]

Most ridiculously, the solution that does work – moderate eating and regular exercise is absolutely free and available to all.

[1]    Arabella Weir. Try it – don't diet. The Guardian. 31 December 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/31/hungry-wisdom-diet-guilt-doubt

[2] Kim Willsher, ‘Dukan diet divides French doctors over effect on health’, The Guardian, 30 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/dukan-diet-france-health-affect

People often wish to change their appearance for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. As with other cosmetic changes, from a new wardrobe to surgery, this can be expensive, and may even have some risks, but it is accepted because we know that it makes people feel better. It's a lifestyle choice and is no more the business of government than choosing a new jacket or deciding to get an earring.

Diets are predominantly targeted at those who feel desperate. It has nothing to do with medical need, a constant round of being told that there is only one way to look attractive inevitably encourages people to adopt a mindset that 'thin' equals 'attractive'. This has nothing to do with a medical need nor do diets represent a medical solution; at least not in the meaning of 'diet' at the focus of this debate.

The pressure on people, especially young people, to conform to a certain stereotype of physical perfection is astonishing and comes from many sources – music, magazines and the celebrity culture endemic in the media. It is notable that there is a well studied correlation between mass media consumption and eating disorders and fears of poor body image.[1]

Diet programmes sell the dream that as long as you look like a given ideal you will come to be like them. This is nearly always untrue.[2] However, it is particularly attractive to those who are most susceptible to peer pressure; primarily the young but really anyone with a desire to fit in. The advertising picks up on this, pictures of happy, smiling, thin people with successful personal lives.  It's simply an illusion and has little to do with the realities of medical need.

[1] Kristen Harrison and Veronica Hefner, ‘Media Exposure, Current and Future Body Ideals, and Disordered Eating Among Preadolescent Girls: A Longitudinal Panel Study’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.35 No.2, April 2006, pp.153-163, p.153 http://www.kristenharrison.org/uploads/8/7/1/3/8713266/harrisonhefnerjoyo.pdf

[2] Federal Trade Commission, ‘Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads’, November 2004, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea03.shtm

Surely the fact that what is healthy is also considered sexy should be embraced. Any motivation to lose a few pounds in a country where more than a quarter of people are obese[1] is surely a good thing for public health. Prop bemoans that diet advertising is targeted at the young and yet this is the group that policy makers routinely target with legislation to encourage healthy living and an early acceptance of the need for good health.

[1] Jeremy Laurance, ‘Britain is the fattest nation in Europe’, The Independent, 17 November 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/britain-is-the-fattest-nation-in-europe-8324262.html

There's a lot to be said for eating well and being generally healthy. It's not just a matter of weight but the effect that bad nutrition has in contributing to heart conditions, blood pressure, energy levels and other health indicators.[1] None of these things are helped by trying to drop three stone in a couple of months by filling your body with one thing regardless of what it needs at the time as many of these diets do

Our physical appearance should be an indicator of our lifestyle not an accessory to it.

The diet industry has poured considerable time and effort, with help from Holywood and the publishing industry, in to promoting the idea that thin and emaciated are the same thing.

Fad diets are, for many, less healthy than being a little overweight.

[1] BMJ, ‘Obesity – how to lose weight’, 31 October 2012, p.3, http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/pdf/patient-summaries/556120.pdf

There is no doubt that weight is not purely a medical issue but that a positive appearance helps self-confidence and opens lifestyle opportunities. Different people approach losing a few pounds in different ways, some have the time for the meticulous dietary exercise and training regime Prop is suggesting but most don't. Promotion of other option is simply meeting that need.

Dieting is a medical choice and should be treated  as such; advertising the available options rather than discussing this with a doctor means that people do not have all of the available information and cannot make their decision in a safe environment.

In comparable areas such as giving up smoking, controlling drinking, making decisions about exercise, knowledge about inoculations before travel and so forth, we prize medical expertise. The diet industry in the UK is worth £2bn[1] (it's $61bn in the US) and is marked out by allowing the same people to tell us that we are sick in the first place and then tell us the cure and then do it all again when the solution didn't work.

Generally accepted medical opinion is that this is a slow process with miracle cures both unlikely to work in the first place and, where they do, more unlikely to last. In some cases the dieting may even threaten health. For example French doctors have criticised the Dukan diet, Dr Boris Hansel for example says "There are real risks … infertility, sleep apnoea, high blood pressure, type-two diabetes, liver disease or cardiovascular problems. Following this diet is not harmless; it could cause real health problems" but its endorsement by celebrities mean that many will ignore such warnings or never even hear of them.[2]

Most ridiculously, the solution that does work – moderate eating and regular exercise is absolutely free and available to all.

[1]    Arabella Weir. Try it – don't diet. The Guardian. 31 December 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/31/hungry-wisdom-diet-guilt-doubt

[2] Kim Willsher, ‘Dukan diet divides French doctors over effect on health’, The Guardian, 30 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/dukan-diet-france-health-affect

People often wish to change their appearance for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. As with other cosmetic changes, from a new wardrobe to surgery, this can be expensive, and may even have some risks, but it is accepted because we know that it makes people feel better. It's a lifestyle choice and is no more the business of government than choosing a new jacket or deciding to get an earring.

Diets are predominantly targeted at those who feel desperate. It has nothing to do with medical need, a constant round of being told that there is only one way to look attractive inevitably encourages people to adopt a mindset that 'thin' equals 'attractive'. This has nothing to do with a medical need nor do diets represent a medical solution; at least not in the meaning of 'diet' at the focus of this debate.

The pressure on people, especially young people, to conform to a certain stereotype of physical perfection is astonishing and comes from many sources – music, magazines and the celebrity culture endemic in the media. It is notable that there is a well studied correlation between mass media consumption and eating disorders and fears of poor body image.[1]

Diet programmes sell the dream that as long as you look like a given ideal you will come to be like them. This is nearly always untrue.[2] However, it is particularly attractive to those who are most susceptible to peer pressure; primarily the young but really anyone with a desire to fit in. The advertising picks up on this, pictures of happy, smiling, thin people with successful personal lives.  It's simply an illusion and has little to do with the realities of medical need.

[1] Kristen Harrison and Veronica Hefner, ‘Media Exposure, Current and Future Body Ideals, and Disordered Eating Among Preadolescent Girls: A Longitudinal Panel Study’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.35 No.2, April 2006, pp.153-163, p.153 http://www.kristenharrison.org/uploads/8/7/1/3/8713266/harrisonhefnerjoyo.pdf

[2] Federal Trade Commission, ‘Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads’, November 2004, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea03.shtm

Surely the fact that what is healthy is also considered sexy should be embraced. Any motivation to lose a few pounds in a country where more than a quarter of people are obese[1] is surely a good thing for public health. Prop bemoans that diet advertising is targeted at the young and yet this is the group that policy makers routinely target with legislation to encourage healthy living and an early acceptance of the need for good health.

[1] Jeremy Laurance, ‘Britain is the fattest nation in Europe’, The Independent, 17 November 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/britain-is-the-fattest-nation-in-europe-8324262.html

There's a lot to be said for eating well and being generally healthy. It's not just a matter of weight but the effect that bad nutrition has in contributing to heart conditions, blood pressure, energy levels and other health indicators.[1] None of these things are helped by trying to drop three stone in a couple of months by filling your body with one thing regardless of what it needs at the time as many of these diets do

Our physical appearance should be an indicator of our lifestyle not an accessory to it.

The diet industry has poured considerable time and effort, with help from Holywood and the publishing industry, in to promoting the idea that thin and emaciated are the same thing.

Fad diets are, for many, less healthy than being a little overweight.

[1] BMJ, ‘Obesity – how to lose weight’, 31 October 2012, p.3, http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/pdf/patient-summaries/556120.pdf

There is no doubt that weight is not purely a medical issue but that a positive appearance helps self-confidence and opens lifestyle opportunities. Different people approach losing a few pounds in different ways, some have the time for the meticulous dietary exercise and training regime Prop is suggesting but most don't. Promotion of other option is simply meeting that need.

The main problem facing Prop's entire case is that this is simply none of the government's business. What people eat or don't eat is a private matter and the intervention of the nanny state would have us all on a diet of compulsory cabbage and nut roast.

People can be grown up about this, and where they're children, their parents can be grown up about this. The entire health and education system already exists to tell us to eat our greens and cycle to work; for those people who chose not to do so, they have a range of diet option and advertising tell them what those options are.  The government regularly runs healthy eating advertising campaigns, and they often focus on obesity such as the Change4Life campaign, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the other side across.[1]

It's free speech, it's a free choice for the consumer, it's called the market.

Prop seems to think that consumers are idiots, nobody believes that a diet for a couple of weeks will make them look like a super model any more than buying a pair of speedos will. However, they can assess the different products, decide which one they trust more, do further research if they want to and then choose.

[1] Politics.co.uk Staff, ‘Anti-obesity campaign launched’, Politics.co.uk, 2 January 2009, http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2009/01/02/anti-obesity-campaign-launched

It's simply not true to say that people automatically take their adverts with a pinch of salt. Research in the US suggests that 1 in five young adults trust advertising to always tell the truth and a clear majority think it does “most of the time”[1], as this is exactly the group that is primarily of concern it can't be taken for granted that they will use caution or undertake further research.

[1]    Harris poll. Young adults more trusting of advertising. 5 November 2010. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/612/Default.aspx

How exactly is a ban on promoting diets supposed to work? Proposition isn't talking about tackling advertising online, presumably because it's difficult to do, nor is prop tackling the issue of books promoting certain techniques. So this ban would have failed to catch the largest craze of recent years, the Atkins diet.

Equally diets are a mainstay of teen and women's magazines and a fairly central pillar of lifestyle sections of newspapers. Even so called 'quality' papers endlessly talk about lifestyles issues such as how they don't work and everyone would be better off retiring to a country manor in Shropshire for Swedish massage and a diet of organic barley.

Unless prop is talking about starting to ban books or shut down entire sections (and profitable sections at that) of publishing companies then it is difficult to see how this measure will have any real affect. 

The fact that it is difficult to do everything is no reason not to do something. At the very least articles and books have to go through an editorial process and are open to challenge by other articles and books. That's not true for bought space.

In the same way that we regulate the claims that can be made about cars, gambling websites and dating agencies to protect consumers without banning discussion of transport, money or love, advertising and journalism are treated differently.

If the Proposition is so keen to tackle obesity then regulating then it should tackle food advertising rather than the advertising of diets.[1] Banning the promotion of dieting ads while people are sitting in front of the TV munching on the take away food or complaining that the remote is 'all the way' on the other side of the room, smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Diets are a response, one of many as Prop is keen to point out, to a serious problem that only government can begin to address.

From before we are old enough to walk most people in the developed world are hooked on a fat-, sugar- and salt-rich diet.[2] Going after dieting ads is simply an effort by governments to be seen as doing something in a way that has little electoral impact. People will still use diets because of the gaps, such as the web, already mentioned however it doesn't require government to say anything as risky as “You're fat because you eat rubbish and don't move around much” to the electorate – or worse still, “Your children are fat because you can't put your foot down and tell them they can't have another choc-ice or more chips”.

Prop's entire case is tokenism of the highest order.

[1] Denis Campbell, ‘Call for ban on TV junk food ads before 9pm watershed’, The Guardian, 4 September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/04/obesity-tv-junk-food-ads

[2] AP, ‘Study: Bad Eating Habits Start Near Age 2’, InteliHealth, 27 October 2003, http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/20722/8895/371041.html

There is an enormous difference here. Even fast food chains themselves accept that their product should not be eaten all day everyday. Supermarkets have taken on board healthy messages about people's five a day or low fat brands. They've built these messages into their wider marketing strategy. Diet ads, by contrast, do claim to be a panacea that will instantly make you sexy, healthy, popular and, apparently successful. They are 21^st century snake oil merchants and should simply be run out of town.