By It is no exaggeration to say that our children’s diets are in crisis. 92% of children currently consume too much saturated fat, 86% consume too much sugar, and 72% consume too much salt. 96% do not eat enough fruit and vegetables.
The Chief Medical Officer has compared the crisis in children's diets to a health 'time bomb' which must be defused.
The most obvious symptom of this crisis is the rise in childhood obesity. One in three children is now obese or overweight. Government studies now predict that the majority of children will be overweight or obese by 2050.
Poor diets also have a range of other health consequences. Already 70,000 people die prematurely every year from diet-related diseases like type-2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Distinguished scientists have warned that, for the first time in more than a century, life expectancy may fall with the real prospect that parents may outlive their children. And, of course, those who earn the least are worst hit because cheap, heavily processed, food tends to be the most unhealthy.
Alan Johnson compared the obesity epidemic to climate change because of its potential over the decades to fundamentally change the way our society functions. If, as the Government’s figures suggest, it will become normal for people retire through ill health in their 50s and then die in their 60s (after a lot of expensive medical treatment) we simply cannot sustain a thriving economy or the kind of public services we value.
So what can be done? Obesity and diet-related ill health is a complex issue and there is no single ‘silver bullet’ that will solve the problem. But tackling junk food advertising is a vital first step. Studies into the effects of junk food marketing shows that it works directly by influencing children’s food preferences, and also –more powerfully – indirectly by influencing what family and friends consider to be a ‘normal’ diet. It is said that more three year olds recognise the McDonalds logo than know their own surname.
To date, the government’s record on protecting children from junk food marketing is mixed. To our credit we have massively improved the quality of school food, and introduced some of the toughest rules in the world aimed at junk food advertising during the hours of children’s TV.
But much more action is needed. The rules are not nearly tough enough: research by Which magazine found that 18 of the 20 commercial television programmes most watched by children were not covered by the regulations. Companies are allowed to get away with increasingly sophisticated techniques to target children (like text messages and emails designed to reach children behind their parent’s backs) because there are currently no laws at all to govern junk food marketing away from television, such as magazine advertising or websites.
That’s why we need a 9pm watershed for junk food adverts on television and mandatory rules to protect children from other types of junk food marketing.
Tougher advertising restrictions are effectively free to the Government, and although they will impact on industry, the TV regulator Ofcom has shown that the social benefits of a 9pm watershed massively outweighs the cost to business.
Properly protecting children from junk food marketing is also smart politics. People will support the political party they feel is on their side. A poll for the British Heart Foundation showed that parents a very worried about their own children’s diet and think junk food marketing works to persuade their children. The same poll shows that massive majority of parents support a 9pm watershed for junk adverts, with the strongest support for a ban coming from the electorally vital C1 demographic.
Protecting children from junk food marketing will make a major contribution to solving one of the main social problems of the 21st century. It will also show people that a Labour government is on their side as we try to help them to protect their kids. There are very few effective, popular and cheap policy ideas out there – this is one of them.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Oh yes I forgot, let the state assume responsibility and then it has the power to legislate...
If people want to stuff their faces full of ill prepared cr*p how can that be the responsibility of government, the healthy eating message is everywhere, if people CHOOSE to pay no attention, that is there problem. If they then seek to get help for weight related illnesses - couple that with a binding undertaking to lose weight - and if that doesn't happen, there is nothing else you can do...
They are a drain on resources, and funding should be withdrawn - why should tax pounds be spent on people who fail to help themselves and take responsibility for their own actions...
We could establish a set of minimum quality requirements on all process foods.
So I can't have the odd kebab on the way home from a weekend night at the pub, the football supporter can't have a hot pie at halftime at a winter game, the family can't their Friday night treat of fish 'n chips, no more curries and chinky take aways?
It's never going to happen, but not for the above reasons because Labour would happily kick some traditions in to touch, but because McDoanld, KFC et al, would have the needed politicians/Lords in their back pocket with a bung so massive they'd never have to bother putting in expenses again.
Please legally define "junk food".
And I mean legally so its stands up in court. Unless you exclude all cold preprocessed meals then almost any definition will catch so called value Meals sold in supermarkets, Chicken McNuggets, fish fingers, beefburgers etc.
About half the contents of the nations' freezers in fact.
Why not teach nutrition to the ignorant idiots who feed their children on rubbish ?
Why not just let the State take care of everything?
At church, we have about three dozen children. I would say a few were slightly chubby and one obese. I hardly see a child walking home from school who I would consider obese. I don't think the fat content of food is the main worry.
Secondly, the unhealthiest meals are probably also bought in the supermarket. Mechanically-recovered chicken meat full of growth hormones and antibiotics made into nice little shapes and covered in breadcrumbs.
You might want to wonder why so many children's drinks, crisp-like snacks and chewing gum contain aspartame. If you believe this study, the only weight people will gain are from tumours.
Thirdly, if the parents who took part in the British Heart Foundation's poll really are worried about their children's diet, then what is the government going to do to give them the *facts*, e.g. about aspartame, fluoridated water, behaviour-changing e-numbers?
At my daughters school I know one woman continually foisting her opinions on food down unwanting throats at PTAs. I really do feel for her unfortunate offspring in having such a horrible psycho bitch for a mother.
It is overeating and lack of self-control that is the problem, not the food itself. Fat people are fat because they are lazy and greedy. There is no other explanation, so play the blame game all you like.
Just what we need in a tough recession, more government rules restricting trade!
They were not allowed fizzy drinks, only water or orange juice and no chocolate or sweets.
They were allowed to freely graze on organic dried fruits (figs, apricots, pineapple,pears etc). This resulted in a sugary coating sitting on their teeth and the consequence was decay. Looking back a piece of chocolate followed by chewing on a piece of Xylitol gum (good for your teeth, stabilises insulin and hormone levels and promotes good health) would have been a better choice.
As the ancients once noted: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
All diet, health and environmental fads should be scrutinised carefully before adoption.
The banning of simple incandescent light bulbs and their replacement with complex, expensive and polluting CFLs is but one example of faddish erroneous group think that will come to haunt us in a few years' time.
So you have to cover:
fish and chip shops
ALL takeaways: Chinese, Indian, Baltis, pizzas, pies , beefburgers etc.
Can you imagine the complexity of the legislation? And of course it simply will not work.
Parents should be responsible for their children. For feeding them properly and clothing them and ensuring they do not grow up like fat puddings.
All this rubbish about legislation is typical of a complete failure to ensure that people grow up to have any responsibility. And look where it gets us: ASBOS and child stabbings.
Tackle the cause : not the effect.
And don't tell me proper food id dear: it is not. Proper food takes TIME o prepare and time is what many people have but use badly.
This is a silly idea , Its down to the parents to feed there kids not the state , Its not the adverts that make kids fat its the parents ability not to say know , Its also the lack of sport as they sit playing there ps3 or spend hours on the net .
To be honest if we wanted to ban something that would be a good healthy step forward why not alcohol ? oh the goverment would lose tax on it ?
So if we are going to ban things that are bad why stop at junk food , next we could ban tobacco that kills people everyyear .
Please think things through before you print them .
ricki
Treat junk food in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol if it is so ruinous to health.
Whack 25% VAT on it to pay for the damage it causes to the nation's health.
If the parents can afford less of it then their charges will be eating less of it and possibly more of a healthier alternative.
Simple.
You mean like taxing alcohol has turned the nation's youth into tee-totallers and responsible drinkers?
I know what's simple around here ...
I think there could be something in this. Yes, as MB5000 says, it would be difficult to say what is and is not junk, but in fact the tax system already makes similar judgements between bakery products and confectionary - hence recent court cases in which the manufacturers of Pringles claim they are not crisps etc.
The main problem is how you define "junk food".
Items over a level of fat get the 25% VAT added.
Also, those firms who are required to pay this charge are easily determined by business classification of their premises.
Many countries do this already, have you seen the price of a Big Mac in Norway?
Everything's expensive in Norway, last time I was there it was £7 for a pint of ordinary beer and in an Indian restaurant the 660ml bottles of Cobra were £10 a piece.
What's that you say? Marketing works by getting you to want one product over another?
This might be true in other areas as well - we should contact Direct Line to see if they realise all of those adverts they keep running might be accidentally drawing customers away from Admiral.
Kids don't have jobs to pay for junk food so how about we just start fining the parents of fat kids?
Firstly marketing truism is you cant convince someone to buy something they don't want to.
Second truism is that marketing to the consumer of a good and to the purchaser of a good are not the same thing. Different techniques and pressure points.
Someone has to win, someone has to lose, some are better than others and boys and girls aren't equal.
Plus our great feminised education system doesn't like those unpleasant boy like competitive tendencies....
Immediately when the advertising stops the parent will realise that they need to cook home-made wholesome food, they'll understand the concept of high fat and salty foods straight away and they will no longer buy said foods.
I'm aware sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet, so I'll be blunt. You don't solve a problem by banning advertising, you don't even reduce it. Don't believe me? Ban the advertising of alcohol and lets have a look at people's drinking habits. Ban the advertising of beauty products and wait to watch the armies of men and women walking away from the cosmetics departments. It doesn't work. It didn't work with tobacco and it won't work with junk food.
Here is an off the cuff idea and one you might consider. Invest in the industries and give people a chance to earn a decent living wage without having to have both parents at work. Ensure that two and one parent families know how to cook by ensuring that every school has a sensible home economics program. Back this up with helping to change the work culture in Britain to one that gives people enough time in their day to actually cater for themselves and their families without having to grab that rushed lunch or that microwave dinner in the evening. Do something, anything other than suggesting another ban on advertising.
Did prohibition work? Or did it lead to some of the worst crime seen in modern history? Has the tobacco advertising ban worked or has it deprived sports of their sponsorship? A ban is like telling a child not to do something, they automatically want to do it straight away, much like the smoking ban has led to an increase in smoking. What do you actually want? Healthier children or something to talk about at dinner parties where you can claim to have solved a problem because you banned it?
God in Heaven. Is there no end to the control and power that Labour want to have over citizens?
While we're at it let's ban advertising of stiletto shoes (women fall over and injure themselves), cars (mobile death traps), perfume (it encourages promiscuity), foreign holidays (think of the Planet), mobile phones (they cause tumours you know), music (played at loud volume it can damage hearing), banks (debt can ruin lives), computers and computer games (children need to be socialised to play with each other).
I would go even further than this though. Banning advertising to children will remove some of the 'pestering effect', but I don't know exactly how much it will affect parents' purchasing habits. Therefore, we should raise a tax on junkfood (and highly processed food) and use some of this money to subsidise healthy options and healthy school dinners, free at point of use for all children.
No thanks, Labour takes enough of my money, no more thanks. Why should I pay even more tax for a take away just because someone else is too stupid to moderate their eating habits?
Do high taxes on alcohol or cigarettes stop people from consuming either,no they don't. Tax doesn't stop things, it just makes us poorer. Anyway if we're talking about children, who buys the take away or provides the money, perhaps education at source might be somewhere to look at.
It's not just calories consumed, we consume less calories than we did 50 years ago, kids don't exercise like we did and it doesn't help that continuous governments have been selling off school playing fields.
Hardly an example to our children in healthy eating.