Calorie labels on menu are capitalism, argues Doncaster writer Lisa Fouweather

Capitalism preys on our insecurities. It's how a capitalistic society is upheld.

They dictate our insecurities to us, via the media, and then they sell us the proposed 'solutions' to those insecurities.

Our 'knight in shining armor', 'I'll save you', they tell us, 'if only you buy this very pointless, completely useless product', as though they were not singlehandedly responsible for creating our insecurities in the first place, as though we can be saved from that which we need saving from…society.

It's no coincidence that the 'solutions' to our insecurities always come with a high price tag.

When they drag us down with their constant bombardment of diet culture, and unrealistic beauty standards, and comparison after comparison every time we switch on the TV, scroll on social media, see a billboard on the street, the solutions are pricey because they get us to a place where we are willing to pay whatever it takes for 'redemption', and don't they know it.

But, obviously 'redemption' never comes, as they also know for, as soon as we have bought the 'solution', they pin another insecurity onto us, and then round and round (and round) the cycle goes.

They tell us what to feel insecure about.

They sell us the 'solution' to said insecurity.

We feel momentarily okay about ourselves.

Only for them to tell us the latest 'trend' in what we should be feeling insecure about next, proposing to us the next 'must have' solution.

Constantly chasing that which can never be caught, as quickly as one thing goes 'out' of fashion and we change up our whole wardrobe, our whole face even in the era of cosmetic surgery and implants to live up to the new 'trend', it comes back 'in' again.

So then we're forced to go out and rebuy all the clothes we just got rid of/forced to go back to the salon to have those implants we were told we 'needed' to be worthy last week, dissolved.

Last week: 'Thick thighs are in.'

This week, 'Thick thighs make you look fat. Haven't you heard? Heroin chic is back.'

Where beauty is a social construct, nothing more than a money-making exercise, they dangle the carrot in front of us keeping it always just beyond reach, a constant cycle that can never be escaped from, when we think we've finally got it only for it to be yanked away. Because, again, the redemption that we seek can never be sought.

To seek it at all is a futile endeavor when the only thing that can redeem us - society - is the very thing that oppresses us, telling us all the things that are 'wrong' with us just to make more money from us.

'You're too fat. Buy this very expensive health food - It contains half the calories of the original and will get you the *perfect* body!!'

(Leaving out the part where they tell us that it's half the calories of the original because it's half the size of the original. How ridiculous that we pay 50% more for something that is 50% smaller).

A real-life example to give you here on these marketing tactics:

Fibre one brownies...

When I was in the depths of anorexia, they were one of my few 'safe foods.' Marketed as a 'healthy' brownie, with '90 calories' and 30% less sugar.'

Now, there's no denying that fibre one brownies contain fewer calories than 'normal' brownies, but there's also no denying that they are literally gone in one mouthful. They're one-third of the calories of a normal brownie, because they're one-third smaller than a normal brownie, weighing a pathetic 24 grams.

(For comparison, a standard brownie from the famous high street coffee shop Costa Coffee is 60 grams.

You could buy a normal brownie for half the price, cut it into three, and have your 90-calorie brownie (x3) – mindblown)!!

It really is that simple. But, unfortunately, people are blinded to the marketing tactics that are so plainly being used, their minds too plagued with all the insecurities that have been sold to them, for which they are willing to try anything just to ease that constant burden that is coming from their own brain.

It's how diet companies work; Slimming World and their 'syns.' Attaching morals to food - good vs bad - to instill shame in us surrounding our food choices.

The greater the insecurity, the greater the profit.

'Thou shalt not eat pasta or thou shall burn in hell' (unless it's got a slimming firm logo on it and a hefty price tag on it in which case, the rules don't apply).

A 'normal' spaghetti bolognese from Iceland costs £1. In contrast, a Slimming World spaghetti bolognese from the same shop, Iceland, costs £4.25, with, get ready for this, the slimming version actually containing more calories than the 'normal' version (522.5 calories vs 404 calories)*.

*Granted, it does contain fewer carbohydrates than the 'normal' version, but that *might* have something to do with the fact that the 'normal' version is made up of 44% spaghetti (as you would expect considering it is SPAGHETTI bolognese...), whereas the 'slimming world' version is made up of just 27% spaghetti, the rest being a lot of indecipherable ingredients with; minced beef, puree, and, most mind-blowingly, 'seaweed granules' thrown in for good measure.

Yes, 'seaweed granules..'

It's hard to sit by and comply with a society that so blatantly thrives on our insecurities, pretending that they care about us.

Like in 2022, when the British government unveiled a new policy to make calories mandatory on restaurant menus, apparently to, 'solve the obesity epidemic.'

This policy was (/is) a prime example of how society claims to want to 'save us', yet does everything it can to oppress us.

The policy is not about 'leveling up the nation's health' (what does that even mean?) as claimed by Britain's then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, it's about making money, otherwise why only make it mandatory for calories to be displayed on food and soft drink items?

Why exclude alcohol from the policy when all the research points to the massive strain that alcohol poses on the health of our nation?

When the government's own former chief drug adviser, David Nutt who was, hilariously, sacked for claiming that 'ecstasy is safer than riding a horse', told the Guardian in 2019, three years prior to the policy being introduced, that, 'The industry knows alcohol is a toxic substance, (a claim backed up by the Alcohol Health Alliance: 'NHS hospitals admit 980,000 patients each year for treatment of diseases directly linked to drinking', was alcohol not added to the policy?

'If alcohol were discovered today, it would be illegal', Nutt went on to say, as well as, 'The safe limit of alcohol, if you apply food standards criteria, would be one glass of wine a year.'

And it's not just former government officials who are posing daming evidence against alcohol consumption, either, but the government itself, as a report from 2020 suggests.

'It is not just food that adds to our energy intake, alcohol is highly calorific too. It has been estimated that for those who drink alcohol, it accounts for nearly 10% of the calories they consume.

"We know that each year around 3.4 million adults consume an additional day’s worth of calories each week from alcohol (an additional 2 months of food each year).'

So, to pose the question again; Why then, when the government has done all the research themselves, as is proven in the extract from the government's own report above, did they not include alcohol in the policy?

I think I can tell you why.

Because it's not about health, as they claim it to be, and that's the point. It's about money.

They're not concerned about our health but about lining their own pockets.

It's why their policy, which is supposedly to 'level up our health', only makes it mandatory for calories to be displayed next to food items and [soft] drink items, but NOT next to alcohol, (despite alcohol containing, in most cases, significantly more calories than soft drinks).

A 750ml bottle of wine, for example, (which isn't required to have its calorie content disclosed) contains, on average, 564 calories. In contrast, full-fat Coke (which is required to have its calorie content disclosed), contains 323 calories (per 750ml).

More calories but also, more profit, what the policy is REALLY about.

If restaurants were to display the calorie content of alcoholic drinks on their menus, then they would lose money. So they don't.

Simple.

And so, you see? It's all about money. Not 'health', otherwise alcohol wouldn't be celebrated as it is.

It would have the same shame attached to it as fast food has garnered over the years: 'unhealthy', 'dangerous', 'toxic.'

Except, it doesn't, does it?

When something goes right, the first thing we do is hold our glasses up, 'Cheers.'

When something goes wrong, the first thing we do is hold our glasses up, 'Cheers.'

To celebrate, to drown our sorrows, we're sold alcohol as the go-to for literally anything and everything, asked what we want to drink before anything else when we go to a restaurant (for food).

And God forbid we answer with a soft drink when they come to take our order!

We may as well have gone out with 'BORING', 'PREGNANT', or 'RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC' taped across our forehead.

A sad state of affairs when being sober has more stigma in our society than being an alcoholic.

Not that this should come as a surprise though when alcoholism is so rife in the UK, so commonplace, with an estimated 10 million people in England regularly exceeding the Chief Medical Officers' low-risk drinking guidelines, including 1.7 million who drink at higher risk and around 600,000 who are dependent on alcohol.

But, who cares when it's good for the economy?

When it makes the big boys money?

'Our policies might be completely hypocritical and against all the scientific evidence but, who cares?'

Certainly not us when we're running to the bank with our wads of cash, celebrating in Maccy D's with a Big Mac, watching the group of women on the table next to us, scrutinising the menu for the lowest calorie option.

'Bowl of air, please. Oh and, make it organic.'

CHEERS