MARS Products

stephen77

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

This wont solve anything!

All the fatties will do is buy two bars to make up for it!

They have to try though. If they do nothing, nothing will change.

You can still buy ingredients and make treats etc.
Resturants as in independant ones over chain ones will probably go doen this rosd as well.

Nothing stopping people buy two bars. But if not as tasty in the first place they may not eat two bars.
We will know the results in about 10 to 20 years anyway.

stephen77

michael1983l wrote: »

How about the so called breakfast bars that contain more sugar and calories than a mars bar?

I do not need social engineering thank you.

It annoys me when products are rated against other products, if this has more salt than a psck of crisps it must be bad.
They used to say sandwich has more salt than crisps. They failed to mention it was 6 times heavier.the sandwich also was a source of protein and other nutrients.
The nutritional info given out in the genral media is very poor.

wealdroam

Arlandria606 wrote: »

No... the government, who the population elected, thinks the population does. That has absolutely no bearing on anyone as an individual.

michael1983l wrote: »

I didn't vote, but even if I had it wouldn't make a difference. It is the Civil Servants who are doing most of the work on this, who stay no matter what Government is elected.

Ok, ok, I have now amended my earlier post to help you understand what I meant.

Coopdivi

I've never forgiven them for changing Marathons to Knickers.

robatwork

Coopdivi wrote: »

I've never forgiven them for changing Marathons to Knickers.

Please don't post at 3am.

<Snickers>

whitegoods_engineer

Mars have been doing this a lot. Reducing the size but charging the same or more.

Absolutely nothing to do with health and fat etc, simply a way to charge us more for less!

pimento

Aldi's version of Twix is also very nice.

fluffnutter

michael1983l wrote: »

Are we going to have callorie limits on take away food too?

Eventually yes. Voluntary code that businesses will sign up to in the next five years, mandatory within ten unless current rises in obesity reduce.

Arlandria606

wealdroam wrote: »

Ok, ok, I have now amended my earlier post to help you understand what I meant.

I think you're missing my point, which is that regardless of whether an individual votes, or who they vote for if they do, no individual ever elects a government. Similarly, no government makes policies to affect an individual.

Social engineering policies are not there because of, or to affect, one individual. They're not even there to affect a group of individuals. They're there to affect the nation as a whole.

What that means is that the policies are made based on statistics, which - whilst (possibly) accurately describing the surveyed section of the population - are unlikely to accurately represent any one individual person, much less a significant group of "average people". Which is why everyone looks at these policies and says "well that's stupid, that's not what I want, I didn't ask for that, I don't benefit from that, what's the point of that when you can just work around it by...". Of course they don't agree with it. They're real people, not some bizarre representation of "average".

Back on topic: I object to people changing recipes to make things less tasty (under any guise, not just "it's healthier") far more than I object to people changing portion sizes. Value for money aside, I'd rather have one mouthful of something truly amazing than a huge bowl of mediocrity.

stephen77

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Mars have been doing this a lot. Reducing the size but charging the same or more.

Absolutely nothing to do with health and fat etc, simply a way to charge us more for less!

Quite often reduced fat and salt products cost more to make. If they were cheaper to make the products would have changed along time ago