Junk food warnings-"not for young children"

Regarding education do schools teach cookery anymore?
I fear there is a generation of parents who don't know enough about nutrition and cookery and rely heavily on readymade meals. I'm not saying that readymade meals don't have their place, but lack of knowledge could be a factor.
Does the problem of child obesity occur in other countries, other than the USA?

it's happening everywhere - but NOT to the same extent as in the USA, Indian Ocean Islands like Samoa, and the UK. I'm afraid.

If you visit Northern Skandinavian countries, or indeed mine- it is rare to see an obese child. We have a few here at our local school- all in the same family where parents are both obese. The school, health and social departments work with them on a regular basis- to help, inform and support- although the parents have good jobs, well educated and are NOT from a deprived background in any way.

Any society that would ignore this, would indeed be irresponsible and cruel:

No country has yet reversed its obesity epidemic, they point out in a major new series of six papers in the Lancet medical journal. The best that has been achieved is a flattening of childhood obesity rates in countries like the US and UK, but not among poorer families. The levels are still very high, which means that many thousands of overweight children will have health problems as adults. In England, a third of 10- to 11-year-olds and more than a fifth of four- to five-year-olds are overweight or obese.
New Zealand battles obesity epidemic as third fattest country in the world
Read more

Tim Lobstein and colleagues, in one of the papers, call for governments to press the World Health Organisation to take radical action so that children do not develop a taste for sweet drinks and unhealthy food. They say it should bring in a code of marketing, similar to that which prevents babymilk companies promoting their products to women in a way that deters them from breastfeeding.

“The food industry has a special interest in targeting children,” they write. “Not only can the companies influence children’s immediate dietary preferences, but they can also benefit from building taste preferences and brand loyalty early in life, which last into adulthood.”

Lobstein and colleagues calculate the money to be made by food companies from overweight children. “Fat children are an investment in future sales,” said Lobstein, from the London-based World Obesity Federation. They use data from the USA, where children are on average 5kg heavier than those of 30 years ago, and so consume an extra 200 kcal a day more than a child from the 1970s would have – or 73,000 kcal more per year.

End of quote.

There are huge vested interests from the food and dieting industries out there. I can remember the day the report on the damage done by sugar, in the Balck report in the 70s- was stifled and suppressed - and now we see the results. What many of us think of as 'choice' is actually very very clever pressure put on us by one industry or another, creating 'needs and addictions' - tragically. As used to be with the cigarette industry, and still is, to some extent. In my region, a vast amount of taxation is paid by the Tobacco Industry (yes, the one Margaret Thatcher was a board member of, and made her fortune from!).

* The school, health and social departments work with them on a regular basis- to help, inform and support- although the parents have good jobs, well educated and are NOT from a deprived background in any way.*

My youngest child is not that long come out the education system.
From what I saw, there was a huge amount of advice about eat your five a day etc etc. All my kids got heartily sick of it being told to them repeatedly over many years.
And a lot of information came home from schools about it.

Are you saying that individual familes are helped, informed and supported? And what do those families think about that? And do they change anything? And what happens to them if they dont?

My kids had info and advice about food both at home and at school. There is also endless information available in newspapers and magazines, on TV, on the internet, etc, etc. So if people are ignorant about food it is because they choose to be. I think that should be a free choice. Not ramming food info down people's throats even more than happens already (and anyway, much of it is wrong) is not 'neglect' by society. Change will happen but it takes time as do all things that require changes of attitude.

I agree that it is not easy- and I am trying here to balance the argument with perhaps more extreme examples and comments. This is not a judgement, but a discussion.

However, the NHS is under huge strain- and the cost of treating obesity, via diabetes and heart problems, etc- is VAST, and takes a huge chunk away from other medical issues. Is that fair? Can it be sustained?

Older children may well be able to make choices, but young children, as at the start of this thread, and other examples given- DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE- and as the Lancet link says, become addicted from an early age to high sugar and high fat food and drinks- which is a very deliberate ploy by the food industry. Why do you think the very detailed and daming Balck report on the huge dangers of high sugar foods, was suppressed in the 70s??? Who would benefit (in millions, billions...) from suppressing such a report, or earlier reports on smoking? By chance? The manipulation by industries of one kind or another is massive - and kills 1000000s.

You say the food industry kills thousands, but life expectancy is not going down which doesn't seem to fit. I agree the NHS is under a lot of strain but I think that's for various reasons such as the fact that it is trying to cope with ever more health issues and problems without extra funding, plus a certain amount of inefficiency caused by too much emphasis on management and not enough of good, plain nursing care.

The cost of diabetes only is over 10% of the NHS budget currently.

The diabetes drugs bill was £75.7m in 2013-14, £73.2m last year and £74.2m in 2011-12. Another £6.1m went on obesity prescriptions in the three-year period.

The figures were obtained by the Tories, who said the conditions were harming both sufferers and the NHS.

The Scottish government said obesity and diabetes were on the rise across Europe and Scotland was no exception.

It said the problem was being taken seriously and a range of measures had been implemented to try to tackle it.

The most recent statistics suggested nearly a quarter of a million people in Scotland now have diabetes, almost 5% of the population.

The majority of sufferers, about 220,000, have type 2 diabetes.

Obesity is the biggest risk factor driving the disease, which develops when the insulin-producing cells in the body are unable to produce enough insulin, or when the insulin that is produced does not work properly.

A different form of diabetes - type 1 - is caused by the body's own immune system rebelling and destroying the cells needed to control blood sugar.

A total of 3.34 million items were dispensed to treat diabetes in Scotland in 2013-14.
'Alarming rate'

There has to be a level of personal responsibility. Obesity generally isn't something you catch on a bus
Jackson Carlaw, Scottish Tory health spokesman

The official figures revealed that obese patients were prescribed more than 52,000 items in the same period - about 1,000 a week - at a cost of £1.9m.

That is up from the cost of £1.5 million in 2012-13, but lower than the previous year, when £2.7 million was spent on obesity prescriptions.

End of quote. With other health problems related to obesity, from heart and joint replacements, etc, etc- the figures are much higher.

Surely it is responsible to do everything to try and redress this- so that more money can be spent on other health issues? For all our sakes as well as those who suffer from being obese?

I am obese- I have a thyroid deficiency and am insulin depending diabetic, and need 1 knee replacement and perhaps 2, and possibly 1 hip. So I know- and I do not think me ignoring the issues is responsible or helpful. I do not wish children to become addicted to high sugar and fat foods, and suffer terrible health problems later either.

It is of course none of my business whatsoever, but I cannot stop wondering why you are so adamant that obesity is not a problem and not a problem that 'society' should be concerned or involved about? What makes you so strongly against any intervention from relevant agencies, like schools, etc? Do not reply of course if you do not wish to. But I hope you can undersand why the question would cross my mind.

They say there is nought so blind as those who can see - but in my case, I can see because I am part of the problem- and the responsible thing is to acknowledge it, and do my best to try and find my own personal solutions- for me, for all. Head in the sand rarely helps imho.

In my case, it is partly genetic- lots of diabetics in previous generations.

Thanks for all the information. I did think that perhaps future generations will view our feeding small children this stuff much in the same way that we now view the idea of children smoking. I also wonder at a health warning on toys because of a slight danger of choking on small pieces and no warning on food which is a real health danger. The massive size and strength of the food industry would certainly explain this.

Do people think that very young children become addicted to sugar?

Yes, this is very clear with current research- and it escalates.

Just for the record, 1 tablespoon sugar = about 14 g/1/2 oz, and a tablespoon is slightly bigger than a dessert spoon.

Ah well, a lot more then- as many fat free yogurts contain up to 25Gr of sugar.

From Lawrence Wilson, MD:

SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS


The sugar habit usually starts at a young age. Careless parents assume that children like sweet foods, which is often not the case until they learn the habit from their parents.

Sweets are also usually used as rewards. Most foods marketed as "children's foods" advertised on television are sugar-coated to help sell the product. I This is a disgrace and is indecent, as no better word can be found. It sets the children up for a lifetime of illness and disability.

In this manner, advertisers and parents alike cultivate the sweet taste in vulnerable children. They begin to regard it as normal when it is not. The results include attention deficit, learning problems, autism, hyperactivity, infections, brain tumors and a rash of other disorders that are “new” for children, such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, manic-depression or bipolar disorder, random violence and the list goes on.

To add insult to this, even more insidious in many cases it sets the stage for sugar addiction and adult diseases and shortened lives that go with sugar problems. End of quote.

Even baby foods in tins contain far too much sugar- so if a mum tries to give pureed food made at home, the babies will refuse to eat it- as they are used to the sugar content! So it starts very very young.

And 25 000 children where HOSPITALISED for severe dental decay last year in UK alone.

A child can be malnourished AND obese.

A lot of dental caries is caused by a seemingly healthy snack - raisins. Some mothers give their children those little packets of raisins in their lunch boxes (they are not allowed to give chocolate or biscuits any more) thinking they are healthy; we have a friend who was horrified to find that her 6 and 8 year olds required fillings. She said she always gave them a healthy diet and the dentist asked 'do you give them raisins?'.

I remember a case in Australia where two mothers were taken to court because they were liquidising pizzas and pork crackling with water and feeding that to their babies. This was despite advice from health care workers on how to feed the babies.

jura, I have not said that obesity isn't a problem and I have not said that 'society' shouldn't be concerned. I think society is concerned and I was just trying to turn down the alarmism a touch. I think things will improve in time, as they have in other aspects of human life. I guess I'm an optimist.

Going back to the OP, I don't think one can make judgments about how well a parent looks after a child just because one sees a child eating something one disapproves of. I know people who are very anti-sugar and who are very glad for their kids to have crisp type snacks (which is what Monster Munches are) instead of biscuits or sweets. That doesn't seem like a bad choice to me nor does it seem like any of my business. It's possible to be hyper-critical. I'd be more concerned about what happened to the crisp packet (as possible litter) than what was in it.

My DD used to enjoy a packet of Monster Munchies to eat in her pushchair, on the way back from shopping. When she was two or three. She loves 'em still. Don't seem to do her any harm.

in which case, we are much closer to agree than I thought ;)

Our grandchildren do have snacks and sweets, cakes and biscuits (although never any fizzy pop- only water most of the time) - but in moderation- and they eat more or less everything, with a very balanced diet- nothing obscessive!

But, yes, I do feel all children deserve a good healthy diet, as well as a good education and healtcare- and I am concerned about sugar and fat addition being clearly and calculatingly fuelled by parts of the food industry.

And will leave it at that. Thanks for discussing.

Some of the ideas that exist around salty snacks surprise me. Firstly that they are less harmful to teeth than sugary things- not true they stick to teeth and can be more harmful. Secondly that they do less harm than sugary snacks. The amount of salt in them is over the recommended daily amount for young children, they provide "empty" calories so they fill children up but provide no other nutrition, so a child eating them may in fact be malnourished as she isn't getting the necessary nutrients for growth and development. There is evidence that children devlop tastes for such extreme flavours and reject healthy, fresh food as lacking in taste.
Look at www.worldactiononsalt.com/salthealth/children/

Thank you for your wisdom trisher. In all our fairly numerous years on this earth we could never have picked up all that information without you.

I'm glad to say my DD makes, and enjoys, a wide range of interesting and varied dishes, and in fact has low blood pressure. And still loves Monster Munchies.

You're welcome jbf. I think sharing information and taking part in objective discussion is always valuable. I'm still not clear how you stand on labelling foods, would you approve of either a health warning or a colour coding system?

There are evolutionary reasons why human beings go for foods high in salt, fats and sugars. Back when we were only hunter gatherers, all these things were in relatively short supply but we do need some of each of them. So when such things did crop up we loved them and ate our fill of them. There hasn't been long enough yet in evolutionary terms for this to change very much. So while some people may overdo these things nowadays, I don't think we should be so disapproving about it. It's an evolutionary hangover.

I think there is a difference between concern and disapproval. I am concerned about what children are fed and the lack of clear information for everyone on the things they are being fed, that isn't disapproval. As for an evalutionary hangover does this mean it doesn't matter because some people will survive and we will adapt? survival of the strongest?