The new study, from the University of Sheffield and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), revealed the TfL advertising policy restricting the advertisement of foods high in calories from sugar and fat or high in salt, has led to consumers cutting down on less healthy products.
Researchers estimate the policy, which has been in place since 2019, has directly led to 94,867 fewer cases of obesity than expected (a 4.8 per cent decrease), 2,857 fewer cases of diabetes, and 1,915 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease.
In addition to health benefits for individuals, the analysis found the current advertising policy would save the NHS £218 million over the lifetime of the current population.
[...] Dr Chloe Thomas, First Author of the study from the University of Sheffield's School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), said: "We all know how persuasive and powerful advertising can be in influencing what we buy - especially the food we eat. Our study has shown what an important tool advertising restrictions can be in order to help people lead healthier lives without costing them more money.
"We hope that demonstrating the policy's significant benefits in preventing obesity and the diseases exacerbated by obesity, will lead to it being rolled out on a national scale, something that could save lives and NHS money."
The findings reveal the policy has had the biggest health impacts on people from deprived areas in terms of preventing health conditions, therefore reducing the level of health inequality in London. Despite people on middle incomes cutting more calories, the policy has had a bigger impact on the most deprived areas as people from those areas tend to be less healthy overall.
Journal Reference:
Thomas, C., Breeze, P., Cummins, S. et al. The health, cost and equity impacts of restrictions on the advertisement of high fat, salt and sugar products across the transport for London network: a health economic modelling study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 19, 93 (2022). 10.1186/s12966-022-01331-y
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2022, @11:23PM
You don't think that 100,000 lard arse Brits weighing down that strategic island don't throw the earth off it's rotation?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by oumuamua on Friday August 12 2022, @11:28PM (2 children)
Not just for health reasons but for climate change. More obese people:
* eat more each meal
* are more sensitive to hot temperatures (so set the AC lower)
* take more energy for transport whether in cars, air or by sea
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2022, @11:34PM
> .. More obese people:
...
I think you forgot the $64,000 question, do obese people have more or less kids than normal sized people? That's the biggie.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Captival on Friday August 12 2022, @11:51PM
But also die earlier, saving millions in expensive senior medical care. We're fat heroes!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Reziac on Saturday August 13 2022, @02:24AM (5 children)
...was it just people not going out for fast food so much during the lockdowns that started not long after this study's start date??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Saturday August 13 2022, @09:45AM
I had the same thought. My father & stepmother each lost 10-20 pounds after retiring largely because 1) they weren't spending five days a week grabbing fast food or other unhealthy quick lunches, and 2) they were no longer required to spend five days a week sitting behind a desk at work & commuting to/from the office. Instead, like a lot of working people during the lockdowns, they started going for walks or engaging in other outdoor exercise just to spend time outside the house, since there wasn't much else to do.
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Saturday August 13 2022, @02:02PM (3 children)
It sure looks like [biomedcentral.com] it was the ad policy: they compared the results with another part of England which didn't have the restrictions:
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday August 13 2022, @02:33PM
Did they also control for exactly which fast food? Cuz even in my little town, in fast food I can do from grease blobs to salads. But we lost our two most popular spots during the lockdown.
Given they added "equity" (fundamentally an anti-scientific concept) to their title, I'm reminded of this piece posted on the U.N,'s site (but soon removed, probably due to the bad optics):
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf [hawaii.edu]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday August 13 2022, @07:29PM (1 child)
The study was in London - the extract might have explained that TfL operate London buses and the Underground railway system. The North of England used as the control has a very different culture from London so I would not trust their method.
TBH, London Buses and the Underground railway stations don't seem to have many food adverts anyway. The marketing people don't seem to think people are in a food mood when travelling on them, and I must admit can't say that I am. It is hard to believe these statistics.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 13 2022, @07:58PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves