Junk food warnings-"not for young children"

As it happens I have been reading this morning about NHS charging for mole removals, which is what happened to me.
Charging for things related to diet may help some aspects of peoples' health?

What do you think of the NHS aspect?

In short, I object to the term "junk food". It's a judgement, and a disapproving one at that, about other people.

Which is what the OP of this thread was all about. Pisses me off, in case you hadn't noticed.

The manufacturers of Monster Munches have no clout with me. Makers of food you don't like, for whatever reason, can only have clout if you buy their stuff. If enough people want to eat Monster Munches, so be it and good luck to the manufacturers. Now, here's the real clout: if enough people eat Monster Munches because some dude on the TV says they should (that's the clout you mean, isn't it? advertising clout), in short because they are suckers to advertising, even though I'm sure the munchers know that there isn't a great deal of food value in the Munches (though there is some, and all of what's in them is edible), then it's their own stoopid look out.

Someone will say, oh! but people don't know! Yes they do and it's revoltingly patronising to think otherwise because people aren't that stupid or, if they are, how on earth have we survived this far? How on earth are we gradually raising life expectancy rates throughout the world (yes, I know, slower in some places than we'd like, but it's still happening). Because food is food. If a thing is edible, it's food. There is food and there is better food but because we in the West have so much food and such a huge choice we have got silly and seem to think only "better food" should be allowed and people shouldn't be allowed to choose their own poison as the saying goes.

Any government that thinks it can interfere in my personal choices like that can damn well back off.

Back in the 1950s, the "welfare clinic" supplied subsidised/free orange juice and Marmite for toddlers. The latter is, of course, salty so would be classed as a no no nowadays, except no-one eats more than a tiny amount at one sitting. It is also full of B-group vitamins. Giving the salt quantity per 100 g is meaningless. Even I, a classic Marmite baby, couldn't consume 100 g in a day.

jingl Those posters who are trying to lose weight – whether for cosmetic or health reasons – nevertheless put extra weight on in the first place and only a few can legitimately claim a medical cause.

redheaddedmommy that turned your young blue
I remember the gobstoppers that changed colour as you sucked them.
Now I am paying for them with expensive fillings

You are right, it was just a snippet of that mother's day; however all this junk food is big business and the manufacturers have a lot of clout.

One thing I did think when my DC were young was that the best motto was 'everything in moderation'.
Some children seemed to live on unhealthy food, but others deprived of any crisps, sweet stuff at all went mad if offered that food at parties; cramming the unhealthy stuff into their mouths as if there was no tomorrow. The ones who were allowed junk food occasionally would eat the 'proper food' with a few crisps etc on the plate.

There is a lot of information out there about 'healthy' and 'junk' food but it isn't always apparent from food labelling. I don't think you could say 'not suitable for children under 3' though. If it's not suitable for under 3s then it isn't really good for any child - or adult for that matter.

Has anyone heard of That Sugar Film:
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/that-sugar-film-director-damon-gameua-receives-shocking-diagnosis-after-going-on-healthy-sugar-diet-for-just-60-days-9875791.html

It is just coming out in Australia, not sure if it has done the rounds in the UK.

With my two GS's I usually let them have the salt your own crisps with the salt removed, although the little one does seem to prefer salted ones. Hopefully it gets balanced out by their mother's home squeezed juices and various whole grain vegetarian concoctions.

The child Trisher saw in the pushchair with the Monster Munches, must have had a very happy few minutes. Yum!

Outer Spacer raiders! That's another one Dd likes. Stinks the car out though.

What, exactly, would protecting* babies and young children from too much salt achieve? What would it prevent? What would it improve? Are there any actual facts out there? Have young children become ill or died from regular consumption of crisps?

* protecting them even more than advising parents, as happens already, that babies don't need salt added to their food.

But there is loads of nutritional advice given to mothers of young children these days. I'm not sure that a bag of crisps given to a two year old very occasionally, would do any harm at all. Especially if it is within an overall good diet. If you put health warnings like that on things like crisps, it begins to smack of food police. You have to leave some aspects of child raising to mums and dads.

You may be right. I don't know. You are talking to a mum who used to put a few crisps in the turned up bit of a Tommy tippee plastic bib for her little 'uns when on picnics. Things were different in my days.

jbf " I am pretty certain that any foodstuffs which should definitely not be given to the under threes, are marked already as such."
I have yet to see a packet of crisps with a warning on them. Recommendation follows

Toddlers also need very little salt. After your baby's first birthday, the daily recommended maximum amount of salt for him until he is three years old is 2g a day (0.8g sodium). If your toddler has crisps as an occasional treat, only give him three crisps or four crisps, and not the whole packet.
www.babycentre.co.uk/a1052292/the-five-worst-foods-for-babies#ixzz3ZLa0uOfw

There have been several posts from people who have fed or think feeding a packet of crisps to a 2 year old is OK. So people are confused. A simple health warning (similar to the one on toys) "A whole packet of crisps/snacks is not suitable for a child under 3 years of age" would solve it. I don't really want to legislate for everyone just protect babies and young children

Oh that's not fair. In fact, it's ridiculous. Most people on GN who are trying to loose some weight are doing it for genuine health reasons. We don't just "bemoan the fact...". We try to do something about it. That is commonsense.

Right on bags!

I just wonder how many people being huffy on this thread are also the ones who, on other threads – and there are some – bewail the fact that they are a few pounds or, in some cases, a few stones, overweight. Of course, it's not their fault.

"Fit for purpose" may not apply to food but I think "not fit for human consumption" does. We have food regulations that prevent manufacturers from putting anything actually poisonous or directly harmful into our food. Sugar, salt, fats in proper proportions are not actually harmful and they are fit for human consumption. Anything to excess can cause harm, as we all know, even things that are harmless in normal use.

I think the differences on this thread are down to a difference in political outlook. Some believe in maximising freedom of choice and responsibility with legal protection against actual harm, others swing more to state control and responsibility over what the first group regard as individual responsibility. The problem for me with the second approach is what jings hit on up thread: who decides ultimately? What if the decision making process ends up in non-benevolent hands? What if you get an authoritatian government that disallows all kinds of things that people want to do and which are only harmful if abused?

bags "Fit for purpose" is actually a legal requirement, but doesn't, so far as I know, apply to food. How could it? Otherwise, I agree absolutely with what you have just said.

For the record, rice and pulses include all the proteins that the human body needs (that's why it is such a good combination for vegetarians and vegans), so, while it might get boring, it provides the necessary.

I didn't say food manufacturers shouldn't be responsible, eloethan. It would be good if they were. However, given the plain reality of the fact that many of them are in business to make money and not necessarily to keep us healthy and provide us with so-called healthy food, it makes sense for us as consumers to be responsible ourselves. Saying that someone else is repsonsible for what I eat is just lazy in my view. I am responsible for my health insofar as I can be, not someone else.

We all have a free choice about what we eat, at least to a large extent. It's the people who don't have that choice, who have to survive on little more than rice and lentils who I feel sorry for.

We have a choice cannot be stressed to much. No-one has to buy Monster Munches. People who do buy them presumably do so because they like them. Their choice, not mine, not anyone else's. And no amount of disapproving is going to change that.

If you want to buy, say, a new pair of jeans, whose responsibility is it to buy a pair that fit you and that you like? Not the manufacturers. If you buy, say, a chair, it is your responsibility to make sure it works as a chair and that you find it comfortable and fit for purpose. Makers of chairs and jeans that no-one likes presumably go out of business. Same applies to food manufacturers.

But how do you know which foods are, categorically, unhealthy - given that the so-called experts come up with flawed research which the media, and some sections of the general public, lap up as gospel truth. And then, of course, they change their minds every few years.

In any case, why should there be "food police"? You have to leave some freedoms intact.

Going back to the original post, I am pretty certain that any foodstuffs which should definitely not be given to the under threes, are marked already as such.

thatbags Why is it not the responsibility of the food industry to produce healthy food - not "food that some people disapprove of" but foods that all the experts have been saying for some time are unhealthy?

Surely manufacturers are responsible for their products? When it has been proved that particular ingredients are injurious to health and addictive, I think they should be gradually reduced or removed.

I do agree that there is a happy medium and that the occasional unhealthy snack is probably not a major issue, though I share granjura's concern that some children do seem to be given lots of snacks that have very little nutritional value and which may lead to obesity and other health risks.

I don't know how this can be tackled, other than through public health campaigns which don't just appear for a few months but which are ongoing. When I first visited Mauritius in 1985, I was surprised at the amount of sugar people put in their hot drinks and that they ate very rich Indian "sweets" (cakes) that were high in fat and sugar. When I returned in 2008, there were posters in bus shelters and public areas urging people to be careful about their diet and to cut down on their sugar. It had worked and many of the people I met were much more knowledgeable about what constituted a healthy diet and had adjusted their diets accordingly.

Have just been out to the kitchen cupboard for a bag of Velvet Crunch.....
Mmmnnnn.only 87 cals so not too bad, very yummy rice thingies with chili and basil flavour.No I tell a little fib, after looking at the packet they are made of cassava and tapioca! anyway, they are rather nice, but quite hot and spicy.

No. Sorry. I would like an answer.

And it's far too early for

[monstermunchemoticon]

Och, she's just huffing. Take no notice, * jings*.

granjura are you accusing me of bullying? May I have a straight answer to that please.

Thank you, ana.