Junk food warnings-"not for young children"

I will leave you to it. Perhaps it's time I had a break from Gransnet.

And I turned nothing to "ridicule"!

granjura that is a pompous and miserably grumpy post.

GJ didn't see the child in the OP, eloethan. The OP was someone else. Being nagged with someone's repeated judgmentalism about someone they've never even seen is a problem for me. If it isn't one for you, perhaps you're lucky.

GJ Sorry, but I fail to see any link between adults being addicted to nicotine, and a toddler eating a packet of salt and vinegar monster munch. The OP suggested that eating a packet of monster munch was 'hazardous to health' and that warning signs should be placed on such foods.

A single packet of monster munch isn't a health hazard. As others have pointed out, we know nothing about this child's diet and those who have assumed the child eats these things day in, day out are making unfair judgements.
My darling GCs are visiting me tomorrow and I've got them some little treats - crisps, Doritos, some little chocolate cupcakes, and some boxes of apple juice - full of that deadly stuff, fructose.
Am I the world's worst grandmother?

As for warning labels on food, I am not in favour of them. Ingredients should be listed of course, but there are no bad foods, only bad diets.
Water will poison you if you drink enough of it.

Did you actually read the articles about the effect of sugar on the brain- which does act like a drug? Or did you not bother?

What you describe is an emotional or psychological addiction- which is part of all addictions. Like alcohol, or other drugs, some people are more susceptible, both physically and psychologically, than others. It does not make alcohol any less of a current problem because many of us can enjoy drink in moderation. Are you going to tra and say that the emotional and health damage done to so many by alcohol nowadays is not real?

Some ask for proper evidence- and I try to give some as a starter. But saying 'of course they are not addicted to sugar' - from someone who I suspect has never studied the issues or has the qualifications to do so- without any evidence at all- does not seem very scientific ;)

Leave you to it as clearly a positive and intelligent exchange of views and information is not going to be possible- as is so often the case here.

Turning an issue to ridicule is of course a very well-known 'tactic' on internet Forums, to shut others up. You have succeeded- clever you. Have a drink and a cake to celebrate ;)

Why is it a problem that granjura refers back to the 18 month old she saw? It's not as if the child or the parent is ever going to know the subject has been discussed on here. It is just a discussion - it's not about saying that people are bad parents. It's about a concern that probably some parents are not aware that regularly giving certain types of food and drink to young children is not advisable.

Some people have referred to our right to choose what we eat. Granjura is emphasizing the fact that a young child can't really be said to be exercising an informed "choice" as to what he/she eats. The habits that are formed in childhood are difficult to change.

An extract from a review of a book called "Taste Health and the Industrialisation of the American Diet" states:

"... it’s during infancy that American palates become acclimated to tastes and textures, including those of highly processed, minimally nutritious, and calorie-dense industrial food products."

These words are equally applicable to the UK and other developed countries that are experiencing increasing rates of obesity even in young children.

Of course they're not 'addicted' to sugar. You enjoy eating sweet stuff and then it's human nature to want more. There are no physical symptoms which would be the case with real addiction. Just a psychological yearning for more of the same pleasure.

I don't believe a bit of sugar does any harm. Good for quick energy boost. And I've never noticed any unwanted after effects. Obviously you can't stuff sweet stuff all the time.

I still have a strong belief in the beneficial effect of marmalade on a slice of wholemeal bread.

7. CONCLUSION

From an evolutionary perspective, it is in the best interest of humans to have an inherent desire for food for survival. However, this desire may go awry, and certain people, including some obese and bulimic patients in particular, may develop an unhealthy dependence on palatable food that interferes with well-being. The concept of “food addiction” materialized in the diet industry on the basis of subjective reports, clinical accounts and case studies described in self-help books. The rise in obesity, coupled with the emergence of scientific findings of parallels between drugs of abuse and palatable foods has given credibility to this idea. The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol. The correspondence to some people with binge eating disorder or bulimia is striking, but whether or not it is a good idea to call this a “food addiction” in people is both a scientific and societal question that has yet to be answered. What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregrate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive.
Go to:
Acknowledgments

This reseach was supported by USPHS grant MH-65024 (B.G.H.), DA-10608 (B.G.H.), DA-16458 (fellowship to N.M.A) and the Lane Foundation.

Here is another article. But no-one here want to be bombarded with lots of long articles- so I only posted part of the previous one (and the links). Everyone interested should do a bit of their own research, there is plenty of there- much of which suppressed by the massive and powerful sugar industry. Getting kids used to very high sugar foods (and other non-helathy ingredients) - leading to some form of addiction to such (including eating too much- and especially too much of the wrong things) - is very very profitable.

There are no links to studies in that lot, jura, so I assume them to be opinion pieces, not scientific facts.

There is plenty our there is you search. Here is just one- which indicates that sugar does have a vey specific action on the brain, like a drug.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015


Is Sugar More Addictive Than Cocaine?
In 2014, Americans were eating more sugar than ever before -- on average, about 160 pounds a year. (howzey/Flickr)

In 2014, Americans were eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year. (howzey/Flickr)

The 2015 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee just released new recommendations to limit added sugars to 10 percent of daily calories. Right now, Americans are eating more sugar than ever before — on average, about 160 pounds a year.

James DiNicolantonio is a cardiovascular research scientist at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. He recently published a comprehensive review of dozens of studies in which he contends that sugar is more dangerous than salt when it comes to risk for heart disease. He says that refined sugar is similar to cocaine — a white crystal extracted from sugar cane rather than coca leaves — and that studies show it can be even more addictive than the recreational drug.

“When you look at animal studies comparing sugar to cocaine,” DiNicolantonio told Here & Now’s Lisa Mullins, “even when you get the rats hooked on IV cocaine, once you introduce sugar, almost all of them switch to the sugar.”

DiNicolantonio is careful to differentiate between refined and intrinsic sugars; while the former have the potential to cause adverse health effects due to their concentrated nature, the latter, such as lactose in milk, “aren’t necessarily unhealthy,” he explained. In fact, humans are biologically drawn to sugar, as it helps the body to store fat, and thus allowed us to better survive winter in Paleolithic times.

We shouldn’t be able to eat a Snickers bar for cheaper than we can eat an apple.
– James DiNicolantonio

“Unfortunately now, that [neurological] reward is working against us because now we’re ingesting very refined sugars at a much higher potency and dose than we used to,” he said.

But sugar addiction is not biological. Instead, DiNicolantonio says a certain consumption threshold must be achieved over a certain period of time in order to alter the brain’s neurochemistry. Subsquently, people experience dopamine depletion and sugar withdrawals.

End of quote- just one of so many articles. And as said before- many reports are being repressed by the sugar industry and other vested interest. There is a huge amount of money in foods- especially the wrong foods. Getting kids used to, and therefore 'addicted' to high sugar (and high everything, be it fats ot salt) foods is very profitable in the long-term.

Toddlers do tend to be picky and eat the same foods regularly, and parents do tend to feed them the same things regularly too (I did) - so although this may have been a 1 off- it is unlikely. Find it tiresome if you wish.

Article here, from the Guardian last September maintains it is eating some people are addicted to, not sugar.

Can anyone post some links to scientific studies that show that salt and sugar are addictive, please? Is the word 'addictive' being used quite correctly here, or rather loosely? Having an acquired taste for something does not mean one is addicted to it, and if it is only an acquired taste, it's not too difficult to do something about it. Addictions are another matter altogether.

Wish you'd stop speculating (judgmentally) about the babe in the OP, jura. It's getting really tiresome.

I mean unlimited fat, of course.

Yes. I think that's probably what's happened with the fats thing too. The Cambridge research did not give the green light to fat. And the Swedish research re dairy fat was flawed.

Agreed- my worry is about you saying that Government guidelines are plucked out of thin air- or something like that. They may not be perfect- but ... There are a lot of people here who have totally mocked the whole thread (what their motives are, are not totally clear ...).

Absent, yes, people have a choice. I agree. The point about jeans is really non-sense- jeand too tight might be uncomfortable, or unfashionable- but that won't kill you, will it?

But tell me, what choice does an 18 month old have? And as the taste for sugar and salt is difficult to reverse, and can be, emotionally and physically addictive- starting to eat large amounts (and perhaps this was a 'one-off' perhaps !?) very young, can and does cause severe problems long-term for many in modern society. Can you really deny this?

The post stating that some posters may be concerned because they are overweight themselves is really hitting below the belt and nonsense.
If a smoker who is totally addictive to nicotine and has been unable to stop, despite trying hard- and suffers from this, perhaps with severe health problems- would it make sense for them to do anything they can to stop younger people starting to smoke and suffer the same fate??? My mother started smoking in the late 1920s- and it ruined her health. She was very keen to tell anyone NOT to start- as she knew how addictive it was and how damaging. Makes sense, no.

GJ no one is saying that a diet 'substantially made of 'ready made' meals, crisps and snacks' is ok.
What they are saying is that if you are eating plenty of fresh food, there is no need to worry unduly about the salt naturally contained within the food, or the occasional salty snack, or things like olives or anchovies.
If you read the link I posted you will see that research has shown that halving your salt intake from 6g a day to 3g will lower your blood pressure by only 2mm - not a significant benefit.

jane, I must say I am surprised to see you post this. Isn't there a huge difference between both extremes- not having any salt is one thing- having masses of salt due to a diet substantially made of 'ready made' meals, crisps and snacks is another. We use little salt to to OH's blood pressure and have replaced it for more spices and pepper- but not in an obsessive fashion.

Isn't there a risk that such comments may be taken as 'salt is not/never a problem' even with heart disease?

Not if they have the sense to go to the "behind the headlines" part of the NHS website. Invaluable.

That's the trouble with government guidelines, jingl.
Too many people just accept them without questioning who made them up, or why.

No qualifications janea. Just prefer to stick to government guidelines, that's all. And I can spot a money-making would-be celeb when I see one.

I agree Elegran.

I think these sorts of issues should be made more interesting and relevant to young people. If lessons based around food/advertising, involved fact-finding, such as analysing processed food packaging or investigating a fast food outlet, which then culminated in a debate, it might make the subject more engaging. The class could then be randomly assigned to one "side" of the debate - the food industry/fast food outlets v. its critics/the consumer, given some guidance as how to research the issue and then present their side of the argument.

I think just telling young people this is good/this is bad isn't that effective and a more imaginative approach is needed.

I do notice on the CBBCs I Can Cook programme that the little children who make their own simple dish always find it very tasty, presumably because they've made it themselves.

Perhaps what is needed is not pronouncements on what we should or should not eat, but education in schools and on TV in how to assess what is being pushed at us by "experts" who have links to big business, and how to take what advertisers say with a (large) pinch of salt.

I wonder what would happen if the government did shut up on this issue.
My guess is that it would be a whole lot worse, but not sure.
Humans tend to follow someone or some people. I wonder who they would then follow. Celebrities, their family, chefs?

I reckon being in tune with your body and what it needs is an excellent guide. Unfortunately it can become distorted by clever advertising, confusing government guidelines and self-doubt.