Regulation of Diet Industry (Hansard, 29 June 1994)

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the diet industry; to bring all medicines relating to diets under control; and for connected purposes. The Bill that I seek leave to introduce would make provision to regulate the diet industry and to bring weight loss pills, potions and patches under the Medicines Acts. Such a Bill is long overdue. At present, the diet industry can claim virtually anything for its products. When they do not work, the consumer blames herself—it is usually women who buy such products—and moves on to try the next product.

Leading health professionals in this country, America and Canada agree that dieting is not good for our health. It has been widely established that diets do not work. Ninety-five per cent. of dieters regain all the weight lost within two or three years.

Another purpose of the Bill is to reinforce and support the aims of Dietbreakers—an excellent organisation founded by Mary Evans Young, which challenges the perils and futility of dieting except for medical reasons, such as diabetes and other diagnosed illnesses. Dietbreakers opposes the tyranny of thinness. I am glad to say that the movement is growing and has taken on an international dimension. No Diet Day on 5 May was celebrated by men and women, but mainly women and girls, from Helsinki to New York. They are saying loud and clear that they have had enough of the ill-health and misery peddled by the diet industry.

Ninety per cent. of British women diet at some time during their lives. At any given time, 50 per cent. of women are dieting, including girls as young as eight and women as old as 75. There is also growing evidence that men and boys are being targeted by the diet industry. Dietbreakers points out, and I agree, that dieting undermines women's emotional and physical well-being and is often a step towards serious eating disorders.

The fashion industry and the image-makers place enormous pressures on people, and on women and girls in particular, to be unhealthily thin. They imply that, unless we can get into a size 10 or 12 dress, we are no longer attractive. It is a tragedy that those powerful image-makers are encouraging western women and girls to starve through dieting when so many people are dying from starvation in many parts of the developing world.

I believe that the regulations that I propose are eminently sensible. All weight loss centres should prominently display a health warning that rapid weight loss is dangerous to health. All weight loss companies should provide consumers with a card that clearly outlines the benefits and risks of any weight loss. They should also disclose additional charges. Too often the consumer buys a product and then discovers that she must incur extra charges when a programme has been devised. All diets and weight loss pills, potions and patches should be brought under the Medicines Acts.

All products—including books, tapes and videos—should clearly state the risks of rapid weight loss and that permanent weight loss is unlikely and cannot be guaranteed. Consumers should be informed of the estimated or actual duration of the recommended programme.

816 Weight loss centres should do what is now being done in America, which is to display posters on their premises carrying the warnings, "Rapid weight loss may cause serious health problems", "Only lifestyle changes such as making healthy food choices and exercising are likely to promote any long-term weight loss" and "People should consult a doctor before starting a weight loss programme." Consumers should have the right to ask about the qualifications of people promoting weight loss programmes.

The potential damage of rapid weight loss is a serious health issue. It is not a trivial matter. At the extreme end, it can lead to the sad and haunting pictures that we saw recently in the press of the surviving twin, Samantha Kendall, whose sister Michaela died from anorexia. Until Samantha went to Canada, where she is now happily responding to treatment, she starved herself almost to the point of death. She weighed just 4 stone. It was a terrible tragedy that started with dieting. As two happy, plump, 14-year-old teenagers, they decided that they needed to lose some weight. It resulted in the death of one and the near-death of the other.

If it is argued, as it was yesterday on another ten-minute Bill, that regulations could cost industry profits—the Conservative party is averse to regulations—the Government should study the statistics for people being treated on the national health service for anorexia, bulimia and other diet-related diseases. Although the prime cost is in human misery, if the argument is to be one of economics, what about the cost to the NHS? It far outweighs anything else.

Dieting causes other illnesses. I have spoken about the extremes, but it also causes constipation, headaches, gallstones and depression. It brings on mood swings and causes infertility in some women, but most of all it causes a loss of self-esteem.

I want to mention a few of the more outrageous claims made by those who are exploiting people who have been led to believe that they are not attractive because they do not fit into a size 10 or 12. In the book "You Don't Have to Diet", Dr. Tom Sanders of King's college and Peter Barzalgette expose a few of the greater excesses of the diet industry. They say: As the cult of thinness has gradually perverted our view of our bodies, so a huge range of misleading and even fraudulent products has emerged to exploit the situation. These pills, potions and magic cures do not help you to lose body fat. I shall give a few examples of points made in the book. It warns about appetite suppressants, which are common in the diet industry. In the long run they do not work, but, even more important, they can be very harmful. Bulking agents are pills taken before meals to feel fuller. They often cause wind and other uncomfortable feelings in the stomach. Even worse, they can lead to a blockage of the intestines.

There are creams that are supposed to dissolve cellulite, whatever that is—I think that it is the diet industry's word for fat. One such cream, Fadeaway, claims that all one needs to do is to rub the cream into the skin and the fat will disappear. I hope that no one is conned into paying a great deal of money for that. It is described as vanishing cream, but it does not work.

One of my favourites is what Mary Evans Young of Dietbreakers calls the Chinese connection. Dr. Stephen Chang claims that his weight loss remedy emerges from 6,000 years of study of alternative medicines and that all 817 one has to do is to lie on one's back, rub the tummy and the fat will disappear. Do not try it; it does not work. It is possibly one of the daftest programmes and it is certainly not the cheapest. There are also various drugs that stimulate the metabolic rate. All the drugs have unpleasant side effects.

Laxatives, which are widely promoted, can be very dangerous, and some have been banned. Any weight loss resulting from the use of diuretics or water loss pills is temporary, and such use could be dangerous. The latest fad is slimming patches: people are instructed to attach a seaweed preparation to their skins. It is claimed that the preparation passes from the patch into the body and speeds up the metabolism so that calories are burned faster. That is absolute rubbish—and, even worse, the American Food and Drug Administration believes that the preparation may act adversely on the thyroid gland, and has banned its use.

Then there are the books. Judith Wills has published one entitled "Size 12 in 21 Days". That is a positive lie: the average woman would never be able to drop two dress sizes in three weeks without seriously affecting her health. Why do people like Judith Wills and Rosemary Conley keep producing new books if they have found the perfect solution to weight problems, as they frequently claim? The truth is that they have not found it; like the rest of the diet industry, they are simply out to make money.

Too many people are suffering at the hands of the pill pedlars and jack-the-lads selling seaweed patches and other such nonsense. I want to stop it, and that is why I am presenting my Bill.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

In rising to oppose the Bill, I have no personal interest to declare. I am not sponsored by any food or diet company, nor have I ever been on a diet; indeed, I suspect that—like you, Madam Speaker—I am a little underweight. Sadly, however, that is not the case for just under 50 per cent. of all adults in the country.

While no one would disagree with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that claims made by the distributors of some patent slimming drugs and pads are false, the problem is already being addressed. The Advertising Standards Authority has recently begun a campaign to prevent such advertising by the media, and—as I shall attempt to explain later—the diet industry is working closely with the European Commission to establish safe and effective guidelines for slimming products.

Newspapers have a duty of care as well, however, and they should exercise greater responsibility. The Mirror Group has been singled out by the Advertising Standards Authority for accepting some advertisements for medicines that are in flagrant breach of the code. In naming that bastion of socialism, I hope that members of its advertising department will exercise higher standards in the future, matching those of their editorial colleagues.

My objection to the Bill is this. The long title makes it clear that it seeks to restrict bona fide slimming products: the net effect of that would be detrimental to the health of the nation, as well as imposing a wholly unnecessary burden on industry. The hon. Member for Halifax believes that we should introduce costly and cumbersome new regulations to prevent 18 million adults from taking 818 responsible steps to improve their own health. As I have said, nearly 50 per cent. of adults in the country are overweight, and one in seven—nearly 6 million people—are so fat that their health is in danger. It is getting worse: throughout the 1980s, the number of women suffering from clinical obesity shot up by some 50 per cent.

The hon. Lady spoke of illnesses caused by dieting, but it is well known that being fat—or, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), pleasantly padded—puts people at risk of heart disease, strokes, diabetes, various cancers, infertility, respiratory problems, painful joints and other illnesses. The list goes on and on.

We can gain some idea of the cost to the national health service. In Sweden, where the prevalence of this problem is not dissimilar to that in the United Kingdom, 15 per cent. of the entire health budget is spent on treating the effects of overweight and obesity. The consequences of being overweight and obese are among the most serious public health issues that face us today.

The suggestion that we should simply hand the problem over to doctors is absurd; how exactly does the hon. Member for Halifax imagine that the 27,000 general practitioners in this country will be able to regulate products and services that are needed by 18 million people? Even if they concentrated only on the medically obese, GPs would have to see more than 40 extra patients every day. That could not be left to the dietitians, because there are only 3,300 in the whole United Kingdom.

On the other hand, there are 10,000 slimming club leaders and diet counsellors, most of whom are women, who perform a valuable service to the community, providing regular advice and contact that is helpful to those who need to lose weight. GPs cannot possibly be expected to have time for that.

There is no medical reason why people should be forbidden free access to proven safe and successful methods of self-help. Diet products are not only safe, but are often extremely successful. Meal replacement diets, for example, are backed by a wealth of clinical evidence showing that many thousands of people have lost weight and have learnt how to stay slimmer and much healthier, many without the costly burden of medical supervision.

The manufacturers represented by the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association's slimming foods working group are now working closely with the European Commission to establish high standards of quality and safety. Yet that is the industry that the hon. Member for Halifax says is literally "getting away with murder". She should think carefully before using such emotive language. She must understand that if we allow the weight of the nation to spiral upwards unchecked, more and more deaths are inevitable, along with pain and disability for millions, much of it preventable.

If the hon. Member for Halifax believes that it is the diet industry that is dictating that all women have to conform to a certain body shape", I imagine that she must be completely unaware that the diet industry is already subject to strict controls on advertising and is simply not permitted to use idealised over-thin images to promote its products. The only body shapes to which the responsible diet industry encourages women to conform are those that are healthy and comfortable for each individual.

Nobody should feel pressurised for being fat, but everybody has the right to take control of his or her own 819 health and to have full information and access to all available safe methods of doing so. The Government are not about to remove the freedom of the individual.

Supporters of the Bill should be careful that they do not become involved in sizeism in reverse. If people are heavily overweight, of course it is right that they should be persuaded to lose weight, just as heavy smokers should be persuaded to cut down, because for many that will mean escape from a painful and disabled old age, and possibly an early death.

Everyone is horrified by the apparent increase in eating disorders, but the hon. Member for Halifax clearly does not understand that the abnormal eating behaviours of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are symptoms—outward expressions of deep and serious psychological disorders. Any clinical reference manual will explain that clearly. She must be clear in her mind that the difference between dieting and eating disorders is profound. One is a necessary undertaking for nearly half the population; the others are symptoms of deep psychological disturbance.

It is trite and irresponsible to believe that complex psychological disorders can be cured by restricting products from which no one is in danger. By holding up the industry as a scapegoat, and thereby ignoring the need to look for the real causes, we should not only jeopardise the health and well-being of almost half the population, but also do the small but tragic minority who suffer from anorexia and bulimia a huge and desperate disservice.

We are a Government of deregulation, so what possible value can there be in introducing costly and cumbersome burdens and regulations that have no medical basis whatever, would be unenforceable and would put an unnecessary and impossible burden on GPs? I beg to oppose the Bill.