This article references eating disorders.
First, they added calories to menus. Now they’re coming for portion sizes.
Between the constant stream of Ozempic-focused headlines, idealised beauty standards set and reinforced by social media and celebrities, and the never-ending reports about Britain’s so-called obesity crisis, there is no escaping the topic of bodyweight right now.
In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the body positivity movement has been dismantled altogether, and we have reverted back to '90s diet culture, which was toxic then, and certainly has no place in 2025.
First, Boris Johnson's Conservative government introduced legislation in 2021 which meant that businesses with over 250 employees – including restaurants, cafes and third-party food providers like Deliveroo and Just Eat – had to display calorie information on their menus, apps and food labels by law.
At the time, charities warned that such a move would encourage disordered thinking about eating and food, as well as hinder recovery. Three years on from the policy’s introduction, Beat says it has seen a sharp rise in reports about this measure.
But now, Naveed Sattar, the current government’s obesity mission chair and professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, is taking things one step further, by suggesting that both restaurants and supermarkets provide smaller food portions – specifically for women (oh, and short men).
Like the rest of her family, Khloé has made her body our business for years. But does that make it fair game?
In an article authored by Professor Sattar in The Lancet recently, the academic claimed that current portion sizes are “typically calibrated to the average energy requirements of an adult man,” therefore making them “oversized” for women.
This, per Sattar, combined with guilt over food waste and our love of a good bargain (because we are incentivised by ‘deals’ for larger meal options, naturally), all makes women more susceptible to obesity than their male counterparts, which he backed up with a global study from 2021, which found that (marginally) more women were obese than men.
And yet, the 2022 Health Survey for England, specifically, concluded that men (67%) were more likely than women (61%) to be overweight or obese.
Now, I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of public health. Experts recently warned that the number of children and teenagers with high blood pressure globally has nearly doubled in the past 20 years, and the latest government figures also reveal more than a quarter of children (26.8%) aged 2-15 in England are overweight or obese, which some studies show can be associated with negative public health outcomes.
What I am against, though, is bringing in gender specific rules around eating. Yes, Sattar did suggest that if this initiative were ever enforced, it should be optional – so, too, did he state that smaller portion sizes should be “priced fairly”. But not only do women know this likely will not be the case (we pay ‘pink tax’; we pay the same tuition fees as our male counterparts but are compensated disproportionately when we enter the workplace, etc.), I fail to see why smaller portion sizes need to be geared towards women at all. Why can’t it just be a standardised option for all adults?
The weight-loss club may be bankrupt, but diet culture has never been richer.
And then there’s the human element of it all. Going to a restaurant is for many a treat – an experience to be savoured and enjoyed. You shouldn’t have to calorie-count and consider your plate size every time you go out.
It’s also become even more of a luxury with the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. This rings true with a recent YouGov poll, which found that 38% dined out less often than they did a year ago. So it seems like more than just a leap to assume that restaurant dining, specifically, is behind this rise in obesity levels in Britain.
For Emily Frattura, who co-owns Rottura, London, with her Masterchef quarterfinalist sister, Elena, it also makes no sense practically.
“Restaurants should be inclusive spaces where people choose what suits their own appetite,” she tells Glamour. “Whether that’s small plates, pasta, or a protein with sides – not where assumptions are made for them. And practically speaking, how would a shorter man feel being offered a ‘women’s’ or ‘child’s’ portion?”
“In 2025, when women lead businesses, work long hours, and carry the same responsibilities as men, it’s outdated to imply their needs can be standardised by gender,” she adds.
“It feels poignant to rebel against the need to fit in rather than force myself somewhere I’m not wanted.”
What’s more, Kerri Fleming, Beat’s head of services, warns that adding additional measures aimed at women won’t help improve the nation’s health, but instead risks causing further harm to anyone affected by an eating disorder or in recovery, as seen before.
"Calorie requirements vary widely according to a range of factors,” she says. “These include height, weight, age, medical conditions and activity levels, but it's impossible to tell how many calories someone needs by their gender alone.
“Focusing purely on calorie counts risks demonising food, tells you nothing about its nutritional benefits, and risks promoting misleading and potentially harmful assumptions.”
Ultimately, it comes down to control. Rather than being a practical solution that will actually improve people’s choices, it strips them of that choice. Even if these smaller portion sizes were optional, many will internalise this messaging that, as a woman, they should eat less – that they shouldn’t “over-indulge” when they’re out and about.
Really, the solutions lie in education and improving the ingredients in our food, not in limiting how much women eat and halving the size of their lunchtime sarnie.
If you’re worried about your own or someone else’s health, you can contact Beat, the UK’s eating disorder charity, on 0808 801 0677 or beateatingdisorders.org.uk.
Warning signs to look out for and advice on what to say.
