Home

While it is great to see highly graphic images on cigarette packets the illustrating the effects of smoking, one has to question the effectiveness of the labels versus restricting the distribution of cigarettes and tobacco.

Cigarette Warning Labels from Thailand

You really have to question the underlining government policy when a highly toxic and carcinogenic product can be freely available in the marketplace given the known effects and addictive qualities of cigarettes.

There really isn’t any justification for the continued sale or freedom which smokers enjoy have when consuming the product in public places. Unfortunately the government excises and taxes on cigarettes and tobacco represent a considerable form of revenue. Although the long-term costs to the health sector outweigh any benefits derived from the income generation from the taxes, the government still persists in allowing this product to be sold.

Given the extensive rules and regulations regarding the management of toxic chemicals in the workplace, it seems very strange that smokers can freely consume cigarettes which contain a cocktail of thousands of chemicals with at least 60 known to cause cancer (From Quit Victoria) or worse expose those withing close proximity to this lethal drug.

While the images are extremely graphic and may serve to communicate the health risks and act as a deterrent to prospective smoker, the impact on existing smokers will be interesting to determine. Cigarette warning labels are more like a Band-Aid measure to show that the government is being proactive in reducing the incidence of smoking when really smoking should be banned and only available under prescription as an addictive substance from your Doctor.

Ultimately tobacco companies would much rather have a graphic image on the cigarette packets as opposed to the banning of their products altogether. This is illustrated going back as 1972 when warning labels were introduced, in a study by a tobacco company called Imperial tobacco found that smokers agreed that smoking was dangerous following the introduction of labels. Which is a very convenient study on behalf of the tobacco company. It’s no different to the food manufacturers voluntarily introducing nutritional information on the front of the packaging as opposed to the government having more restrictive policy regarding the communication of the additional value of products.

Ultimately when people have difficultly in quitting, its usually because of the addictive qualities of the nicotine and other nasty chemicals added to tobacco which may lead to the addictive qualities of cigarettes.

So this really just begs the question if the government freely acknowledges the effects of smoking why is it still allowed to be sold?

With the food industry’s fear of the imminent legislation looming over advertising to children, their self regulated code seems to be a bit of a joke.

Recently there have been two breaches of the self-imposed code, with the advertising standards Bureau’s complaint regarding a recent Nestle advertisement featuring children interacting with their products.

The food industries guidelines stated that they would not advertise to children under 12 for any food products or high in salt, sugar and fat.
Nestle way later acknowledged that smarties did not constitute a product that fell within the parameters established under their own guidelines.

A similar situation is happening with regards to food labeling, with many big corporate food companies adopt thing and RDI label across the top or bottom of the packaging. While it may be construed as a good initiative by the food industry, it is a sneaky way of manipulating dietary information to receive a positive outcome, that their products are low in sugar, fat and salt.

In the spirit of political speak, they turned the incident around saying that the code was working as advertisements which breached the code were withdrawn rather than these ads should never have been broadcast in the first place. This begs the question if these ads were not brought to the attention of the advertising standards Bureau, whether the Food and Grocery Council would have voluntarily moved to have these ads withdrawn.

The writing is on the wall for other big conglomerates, as the fast food industry has also the precautionary steps to introduce their own guidelines with regards advertising to children. This is been adopted by seven of the big players in fast food such as McDonald’s, Hungry Jacks, KFC and Pizza Hut.

With childhood obesity reaching epidemic proportions, there really needs to be accountability and guidelines more in keeping with marketing unhealthy to food to children.

Also interesting is the exemption of websites from the code, if you look at the Freddo Frog’s website, I’II let you decide whether this is in breach of the code.

I was speaking to the owner of a reasonable sized baker, not one of the franchised varieties about gluten free bread. Mr baker informed me that while there is plenty of talk about people buying gluten free bread, other than those people who suffer from Celiac Disease disease, those people being financially constrained would generally go for the cheaper option.

Upon showing me his recipe for gluten free bread, it had all the good stuff in there, potato & rice flour, eggs, yeast and some other ingredients but nothing artificial. The interesting fact was the ingredients list of the “pre made” gluten flour that he users when some of the more exotic flours are unavailable. Using all the good ingredients makes the bread relatively more expensive than a cheaper pre mixed “Bakers flour & Bakers yeast” varieties.

It contained several preservatives that were “potentially unsafe” such as E282 Calcium Propionate or another chemical (which I can’t remember) that is also potentially unsafe, that is an extract from bleached timber (referenced my my “additives” iphone app).

Nutrition Application from iphone

Using this premixed variety was cheaper than using all the non chemical based ingredients. From his own observations people who were suffering from financial hardship would seek cheap food alternatives. As funds were very limited to buy wholesome foods. a cheaper alternative and would resort to the highly manufactured, highly processed breads that contained very little nutritional value with heaps of chemicals and additives to aid shelf life, colour, consistency, flavour and taste.
Why pay $3 -$4 for a loaf of bread from a good bakery with healthy ingredients when you can go to one of the big supermarkets and pay under $2.

Unfortunately our modern societies has heaps of additional costs that we incur on an ongoing basis, such as our monthly mobile phone and internet bills, upgrading electronic devices regularly, flat panel TV’s, computers, computer software, kitchen appliances, clothes, the latest shoes, eating out, takeaway etc, costs that weren’t there 50 years ago.

Ultimately something has to give and unfortunately it’s our health with the cheapest food option being the only solution to save $$$ but if this a high price to pay for your health??

With energy drinks, caffeine and other stimulants consumption on the increase, are re we turning into a sleep deprived overworked society?
With the latest revelations about The AFL’s acceptance of caffeine loading by AFL players, is this setting a good example for those who look up to these players for inspiration.

Unfortunately energy drinks represent the strongest beverage growth segment worth a staggering $593 or 23% of the impulse market in 2009, with only soft drinks representing occupying the number one spot for highest market share according to Neilsen data

Just look at the growth in coffee on recent years, the good old international roast has been replaced with a cappuccino or latte on the way to work. Even McDonalds, not to miss out on the coffee revolution has European style coffee at there drive throughs and restaurants. (I’m yet be be convinced you can produce a great coffee from a manual)

The most disturbing trend are the number of children consuming energy drinks like there having a soft drink. Suddenly the regular 250ml energy drink such as V and Red Bull has grown in size.
Not to be out done Coke Cola released there own brand called “Mother” to appeal to the youth market, with a mega can at 500ml at a whopping 32mg caffeine per 100ml or 160mg of caffeine.

The real concern is that consuming this level of caffeine on a regular basis is not great for your health. The promotion of these products are so wide spread that even when you fill up at your local petrol station there are advertisements for these types of products.

The most disturbing part of our over reliance on stimulants is why.
Are we trying to gave it all, family life, friends, the McMansion, all the conveniences of modern life, mobile phones, home computers, video games, Internet accounts, stuff, new cars, long stressful hours in the office to pay for this stuff or the time spent using these new acquisitions.

Well something has to give and it’s your health, so are we on stimulant over consumption mode to squeeze more onto the day?

Great to see smoking is banned in cars where there are children. As there is an acknowledgment by the government about the dangers of smoking in confined spaces, this ban should be introduced/extended across any confined public space.

Yes it is fantastic that it will be illegal to smoke while a minor or person under 18 years old is in the car as it is assumed that a minor is powerless to stop an adult from smoking.

I find it strange how smoking is still allowed in cafe’s, restaurant’s and bars where there is a wall missing, ie the window and front wall has been removed with the wall being reinstated further back to create an pseudo open space.

Is it possible for 100% of the smoke in these pseudo courtyards to miraculously rise without disturbance to the ceiling and travel out towards the street and towards the heavens? NO I don’t think so. We have this situation in Australia where the smoking lobby puts undue pressure on the government and the addiction to sales tax revenue on cigarettes is too string, the public are subjected to this health threat.

There has been some movement with the Moreland Council proposing a 5 meter smoking ban from Childrens playground that highlights the dangers of secondhand smoke. More importantly that the council acknowledges that exhaled cigarette smoke does not necessarily travel towards the sky.

We need to follow the leadership taken by the Queensland government in introducing more appropriate anti smoking laws.