Never going to happen, just more nonsense headlines in a paper
Can you imagine an uproar say it someone with diabetes was needing to eat and as a result were taken ill!!
Or maybe it is all just a ploy to get rid of the trolleys?
The source of all this is one of the ex-CMO's recommendations - going back to the original, we find:
Principle 2: Allow children to grow up free from marketing, signals and incentives to consume unhealthy food and drinks.
2.1 Review all tax-deductible expenses, including advertising expenses, available for the food and drink industry to ensure that these are aligned with health policies. For example, only allow businesses to claim tax relief for advertising healthy and not unhealthy products.
2.2 Phase out all marketing, advertising and sponsorship of less healthy food and drink products (as defned by the revised Nutrient Profle Modelh) across all mediums including online, at any major public venue or public-funded event and on any public-sector-owned advertising site.
For example, by using data analytics to turn off adverts of unhealthy food and drink for children and families replacing these with positive health messages.
2.3 Prohibit eating and drinking on urban public transport, except fresh water, breastfeeding and for medical conditions.
There is no mention of this in the body of the report, and to my mind it's a huge non-sequitur - something chucked in at the last minute without much thought. Is not forbidding eating on buses really "a signal or an incentive to consume unhealthy food and drinks"? That certainly wants demonstrating.
Having said that, I suspect that such bans exists in a lot of places, here and abroad, but are not enforced (e.g. in bylaws). I do remember it being the case on German S-bahns, for example (but probably better enforced!).
