Now Even Fruit Juice Is Unhealthy

First one thing.

Estimates that half the UK population will be obese by 2050 “underestimate” the problem, a report has claimed.

The National Obesity Forum said Britain was in danger of surpassing the prediction contained in a 2007 report.

The lobbying group is calling for hard-hitting awareness campaigns, similar to the approach taken to smoking, to try to stem the problem.

Chairman Prof David Haslam said the crisis could get even worse than the “doomsday scenario” already set out.

I’m sure that over half the UK population will be classed as obese by then, if only because the definition of obesity will be changed to make sure they are.

And then another.

People should stop drinking orange juice because it contains as much sugar as Coca-Cola, the government’s leading adviser on obesity has warned, as she calls for a tax on all fruit juice.

Professor Susan Jebb said she had given up orange juice and urged others to “wean” themselves off it or dilute it.

Professor Jebb is in charge of the government’s responsibility deal, a series of voluntary pledges by industry aimed at tackling health problems such as obesity and alcohol abuse.

She warned that fruit juice should not be counted as one of your five-a-day portions of fruit as many juices because of its high sugar content.

Orange juice? I’ve always thought that orange juice made from crushed oranges was about as healthy as health foods can get. It’s like drinking liquid sunshine.

If that isn’t healthy, what the hell is?

About these ads

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Now Even Fruit Juice Is Unhealthy

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank the other sin,OJ is used as a alcohol mixer…………………….tag it as connected to anti-alcohol too now! Besides left unattended it will ferment on its own!

  2. cherie79 says:

    I noticed they are really going after sugar and obesity,wonder why? maybe run out of road on tobacco and alcohol alienates too many people? Got to keep the grants coming in somehow, I set what I like, rarely exercise now and have never been overweight, must be the smoking.

    • beobrigitte says:

      They are going after EVERYTHING until they have an INSTITUTIONALIZED population all over the world.

      Up until i entered the menopause I could eat what I liked and still had to “struggle” against losing weight. This has changed. It is now easy to put on weight, so I adjusted. I still eat what I want – maybe not as often as in my youth – I just have adjusted the amounts. It is MY decision how much I put in my mouth.

    • Rose says:

      “He said it is commonly thought that if modern humans could emulate pre-industrial or even pre-agricultural lifestyles, that atherosclerosis would be avoided”

      • beobrigitte says:

        Rose, what about the ancient Egyptians then? They most certainly HAD atherosclerosis.

        That’s the BBC for you. Labour’s voice. And, as we all experienced, Labour promotes the institutionalized life style.

  3. cherie79 says:

    Sorry meant eat what I like, this touch screen runs away from me sometimes

  4. mntvernon says:

    “Got to keep the grants coming in somehow” ……. how right you are cherie79. Validation of this comes via Dr. Siegals blog where even the Tobacco Control Freaks confess it’s about the grant money, i.e. ” When nearly all government funding to fight smoking is spent on research that adds little to what we knew in 1964. It suggests that the most addictive thing about tobacco is money.” :

  5. Walt says:

    Incidental intelligence: Nick the Greek, a gambler with something like a 50-year winning streak, claimed his secret for staying sharp on two-day poker marathons was drinking orange juice. He likely didn’t know (or wouldn’t’ve cared) about Vitamin C, but he knew about pure sugar and its ability to energize. However, except for the fact that they will soon be extortionately taxing Coke and donuts and barring me from using them in Public Places, I still say, Bring it on. The more Wars they start on inanimate objects, the sooner they’ll shoot themselves in the feet. And besides, if they decide to abstain from orange juice, I’ll skunk them at poker.

  6. Walt says:

    On yesterday’s topic, I can add that in NYC, a pack of Marlboro Reds, my alt brand, goes for $11.96. The city’s taxes are the highest in the country; or so I believe, and, as in Europe, prices vary widely from state to state, and cities can impose their own on top of the state’s.. My brand of choice, the (all-natural, no flame-retardant*) Nat Sherman MCD Lights (oops, can’t call em “light” in the US any more; “MCD Gold”) goes for $14.50 in the city tho I actually buy them in Virginia for a range of $6.50 to $7.50 depending on “specials” and at which store. It’s also been widely written that 40+% of cigarettes sold in NYC are not bought in NYC or are otherwise bought from “the man in the van.”.

    *instead of adding chemicals, Sherman claims to use rice paper that apparently has a slow burn rate so can pass the federal busybody test w/o ruining the taste or the smoker’s throat.

    • chris says:

      No need for a man or a van. In 11 years of not buying cigs in New York State, I’ve only bought from the black market twice. New York City is right on 2 state lines, many other states are in easy driving distance and there are also Indian reservations. Plus, as an international city, one always knows someone going abroad who will stop off at duty free, Let’s not forget the Internet.

      • beobrigitte says:

        and there are also Indian reservations.

        You are LUCKY!!! My (non-smoking) friend visited the states shortly after I did. She travelled far further inland than I did and after returning to Germany sent me some tobacco from the Indian Reservation she visited. This was definitely the nicest tobacco I ever smoked!!!!!

  7. Bill says:

    Off topic but highly relevant (is that possible?)
    Do have a read of this most excellent PDF. It’s well worth the time it takes.

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      Thanks, I’ve just read the first couple of pages (but will continue). Really interesting is the etymology of the word ‘principle': “origin, source, beginning; rule of conduct; axiom, basic assumption; elemental aspect of a craft or discipline,”

      The scientific sense of “general law of nature” is recorded from 1802, which seems to be a corruption of the original meaning.

      • Junican says:

        I think that the author is using the word ‘principle’ in his own way, just has he uses the word ‘faith’ in his own way. His ‘principles’ derive from the uniqueness of the human being. By uniqueness, I mean both in a general sense concerning our consciousness and in a specific sense as individuals ‘with worth’.

    • Junican says:

      Really, really good stuff. Unfortunately, ‘Evil’ has found a new tool, and one which masquerades as ‘Good. That tool is HEALTH!

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Australian state expected to introduce smoking bans in multi-unit housing

    editor | January 14, 2014

    The government of the Australian state of NSW is expected to ban cigarette smoking in multi-unit housing, according to an Australian Broadcasting Corp. story.

    The story was carried, too, in the Newcastle Herald newspaper, where Matthew Kelly reported that the ban would apply to ‘common areas’ of multi-unit housing.

    The ABC piece said that a study by associate professor, Billie Bonevski, of the University of Newcastle had found that cigarette smoking ‘placed people at increased health risk’, though the Herald story indicated that Bonevski’s study had related only to exposure to smoke.

    Kelly wrote that Bonevski, of the Hunter Medical Research Institute, had drawn on data from about 161,000 participants who took part in the 2012-13 NSW study of people 45 and older.

    ‘More than 12,000 people, including 8,000 non-smokers, were routinely exposed to smoke in their homes for eight hours or more a week,’ said the Herald story. ‘More than 7,000 were exposed for at least eight hours a day.

    ‘Multi-unit dwellers were 19 per cent more likely to be exposed than those living in houses, and more women than men were likely to be exposed because they [women] tended to spend more time at home.’

    Last month, Daniel Fisher reported for Forbes that a large-scale study had found no clear link between second-hand tobacco-smoke exposure and lung cancer.

    Fisher cites an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that provided the results of a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade.

    The study found a link between smoking and cancer with lung cancer 13 times more common among current smokers and four times more common in former smokers than in non-smokers.

    But the study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke

  9. harleyrider1978 says:
    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Smoking bans bring dramatic health benefits to communities, detailed in a research summary by the Kentucky Center for Smoke-Free Policy at the University of Kentucky. They have demonstrated success in Louisville, Lexington and 36 other communities in Kentucky that have enacted them.

      As many as one-third of smokers stop smoking. The rate of heart attacks declines. Fewer people visit emergency rooms for asthma attacks.

      And business doesn’t suffer, as opponents have suggested. In some cases, including restaurants, business has increased once a local smoking ban was enacted.

      Kentucky currently has the nation’s highest rate of smoking with about 28 percent of adults — about 1 million people — puffing away.

      It also has the nation’s highest rates of lung cancer and lung cancer deaths and ranks high in a host of other smoking-related conditions including heart and cardiovascular disease.

      Gov. Steve Beshear has set as a goal this year of cutting the state’s smoking rate by 10 percent.

      Nationally, 24 states already have statewide bans and Ellen Hahn, director of the smoke-free center, said a statewide smoking ban in Kentucky could help the state easily surpass the governor’s goal of a 10 percent reduction.
      Yet some lawmakers inexplicably remain opposed to a statewide ban including Senate President Robert Stivers, a Manchester Republican.
      That’s a poor excuse in a state where smoking-related disease costs $1.5 billion a year in public and private funds and far more in lives lost or shattered by disabling illness.

      The General Assembly should seize the chance to enact a statewide smoking ban for the good of the commonwealth and to stop the mischief of local entities such as Bullitt Fiscal Court.

  10. garyk30 says:

    “Estimates that half the UK population will be obese by 2050 “underestimate” the problem, a report has claimed.”

    Using their ‘straightline’ way of thinking; by 2100, over 120% of the population will be ‘OBESE’.

    These people are very sloppy about end results and their forecasts, to say the least! :)

  11. mikef317 says:

    Frank, on low level radiation, “Have To Laugh,” from January 12th.

    This is from The Guardian, but it’s buried in the middle of a long article.

    Scroll down for “The Linear No-Threshold Radiation Dose Hypothesis” by Stewart Brand.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Thanks. That was very interesting.

      The actual threat of low-dose radiation to humans is so low that the LNT hypothesis can neither be proven true nor proven false, yet it continues to dominate and misguide policies concerning radiation exposure, making them grotesquely conservative and expensive. Once the LNT is explicitly discarded, we can move on to regulations that reflect only discernible, measurable medical effects, and that respond mainly to the much larger considerations of whole-system benefits and harms.

      And by the author and founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, no less.

      The other mini-essays accompanying it look quite interesting too.

      • margo says:

        How do we decide what’s true? I’ve read many other, quite convincing, accounts which do not agree with this man, saying (for instance) that Chernobyl did cause (and still does cause) many deformities and that round some nuclear power plants high incidences of childhood leukaemia do occur.

        • Frank Davis says:

          How do we decide what’s true?

          Perhaps we never can.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Margo, the greatest increase of cancers seen after the Chernobyl accident were thyroid cancer. The polish government dished out iodine for everyone (it was given in liquid form and most children threw it up straight away) in order to “fill” the thyroid glands with iodine in order to prevent the radioactive iodine being taken up.

          The increased rates of childhood leucaemias around nuclear power stations has been documented.

          Yet the wildlife – as well as the people having returned – in this highly radioactive exclusion zone looks remarkably healthy. The “needle” forest (Kiefer in German; can’t remember the english word for it right now) nevertheless has almost disappeared with “leafy” trees growing instead.

          That rodents do survive does not surprise me. They reproduce at an incredible rate. However, the survival and successful breeding of the Przewalski’s horse in this exclusion zone cannot be explained by their reproduction rate.

          If we stop throwing tax payer’s monies into this bottomless pit of anti-smoking and other “health” lobbies and search HARD for TRUE scientists, we might find an explanation.
          At this point in time it ain’t gonna happen.

  12. Bill says:

    Read this page. Share it. Download the opt-out and use it. is going to begin very soon, and it will affect every man, woman and child in England and their confidential medical records.

    All households in England will shortly receive a junk mail leaflet through their letterbox about this programme, entitled
    “Better information means better care” .

    This leaflet is not about sharing your medical information with doctors, nurses and other health professionals outside of your GP surgery.
    It’s not about the ways in which your GP shares information about you as part of providing essential medical care.
    It’s not about ensuring that hospital specialists have the information that they need when you are referred to see them.
    And it’s not about submitting information so that GP surgeries and hospitals are paid appropriately for the care that they provide.

    This leaflet is about .

    Not that you’d know, since “” is never mentioned in the leaflet.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Bill, I have a feeling that this process might already be under way. I recall a few months – maybe even a couple of years or so – ago receiving a note from my GPs practice saying something like this – adding details to a data base of some kind – with all the usual combination of platitudes (“confidentiality assured etc) and dire warnings designed to scare anyone away from opting-out (” … so that if you are taken to hospital there won’t be any delays in emergency staff accessing your medical records when a delay of just minutes could be life threatening” etc etc). Needless to say, I took no notice of their empty threats and opted out anyway.

      Or is this another scheme? Perhaps too many people, like me, opted out last time!

      • Bill says:

        I too thought I had already done this but I showed the good lady the image of the leaflet and she said no we hadn’t had that one so thought it was worth the time and effort to opt out again and spread the message of course.

  13. Matt says:

    I strongly suspect nobody will be obese by then, despite how many times they reduce the definition threshold. Starvation and mulnutrition seem more likely. If current policies continue then the majority of ordinary people won’t be able to afford much in the way of food, nor will they be able to heat their homes. Shivering away the calories in a queue to spend your wages on a stale loaf, Soviet style, doesn’t make for a healthy or happy life but it could indeed be described as a “cure” for obesity.

  14. garyk30 says:

    About 40%, 16 million, people over the age of 65 are classified as over-weight.
    BMI of 25 – 29.9


    we find that normal BMI for persons over the age of 65 is 23-30.

    The about 16 million persons over the age of 65 that are classified as ‘overweight’ are actually ‘normal weight’

    and the ‘overweight/obesity’ crisis is overstated by at least 16 million people.

  15. mikef317 says:

    I could have missed it, but I haven’t seen any mention of this. “On Jan. 1, an update to Illinois’ Litter Control Act will subject anyone who tosses a cigarette on the ground to increased penalties – the first offense now comes with a Class B misdemeanor and a fine up to $1,500.The second time offense becomes a Class A misdemeanor, and the third time, it’s a felony that can come with a one-to-three year jail sentence and a $25,000 fine.”

    On the lighter side:

  16. beobrigitte says:

    The lobbying group is calling for hard-hitting awareness campaigns, similar to the approach taken to smoking, to try to stem the problem.

    Yes. The BBC announced it a couple of days ago. They even employed a 27 year old woman weighing 27 stone to whinge and whine about the lack of help given to “fat” people. She did admit that it was her “fault” but it really wasn’t her “fault”, because she is ‘comfort eating’. She continued with the question:, why do smokers and drinkers get help but “fat” people don’t?

    To me it was a deja-vu experience of the Labour years. Anything BUT taking control of own lives!!!
    “It’s too hard” to lose weight, she said. She wants to be controlled by an institution that FORCES her to lose weight as she is unhappy with her looks.

    If this BBC ad in the news was supposed to induce sympathy and cries for “help” for this “poor” woman it failed epically with me. At the age of 27 I would expect her to be able to take control of her own life. After all, she is of child bearing age and supposed to be ‘mature’ enough to raise chiiiildren’. And being a matured person does mean that you have learned to deal with the things you simply failed in your youth.
    What on earth have the Labour years done to this generation? Create a national institution in which people just have to whinge and whine that they can’t handle life so the nation needs to be covered by a roof to be able to declare itself the biggest mental institution of the world?
    And, if the offspring is by nature more lively than the parents and school likes, just shove some Ritalin down their throats. Nice and calm them…… Sod the long term effects we know nothing about as yet.

    Better stop ranting about people refusing to take CONTROL of their own lives.

  17. Pingback: Closet Monster. | underdogs bite upwards

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s