Coca-Cola and sugar

They are still growing at a rapid rate of knots. And I think most of them are pretty active.

Jing it's the teenagers who won't burn it off because they're not particularly active who would the problem. Eating big portions of sugar laden Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast. who knows what at school and then after tea, playing on their X Box, etc, probably eating unhealthy snacks at the same time.

Breakfast cereals for children should be the sugar free versions like Weetabix, Ready Brek, porridge, that kind of thing which are good for keeping their blood sugars level too.

It's easy enugh not to buy those huge tins of Quality Street. Trouble is, we always get given one . They are truly the work of the devil.

Bags Research is being done at Cardiff and Exeter into why some people overeat www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/55041-snacking-and-bmi

Alkthough I think it's up to individuals to try to maintain a healthy weight, I do think the supermarkets bear quite a lot of responsibility.

I went into Waitrose today and the first thing I saw was a large pyramid of tins of Quality Street, on special offer
They could just have easily showcased their special offers of fruit and veg.

Growing teenagers would soon burn it off. And they would get the added vits and minerals. I was thinking more about little kids who are the usual consumers of that kind of stuff. Fine if you can get your child to eat Weetabix, but any reasonable brekker is better than none. (And there's always the milk that goes with it)

When they are made of more than 1/3 sugar? So a small helping has 2 spoonfuls of sugar? (and about 6 tsps of cornflour)
Many teenagers would probably go for more than a small helping - so could start the day with 4 or 6 tsps in their bowl .

www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=266749657

And the cheaper end sausages.

I think it's more likely to be high fat food that is making people fat. Things like Greggs sausage olls, pasties, chips, high fat mince. etc.

I don't think Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast will harm a child.

I think Even the PM has said a sugar tax would hit the less well off hardest. I am totally against it. Food police - wrong.

I'd support a campaign as well. I noticed the other day that when it was the school holidays the supermarket had special offers like 2 x Litre bottles of Coca Cola for £1 50. I wouldn't mind a sugar task but special offers could still make sugary drinks relatively cheap.

Yes, I agree, jess, about the complex psychology.

I'd be happy to support a gransnet campaign to try and stop special offers on sugary foods.

Bags the people who make and sell this stuff engage in very sophisticated advertising and marketing, specifically designed to persuade people to buy, despite their knowledge and education. We can all think of very intelligent and well educated people who are seriously overweight I am sure... The psychology behind the behaviour is very complex.
ajanela if there were no profits they would just go out of business wouldn't they. I think that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime whatever governments do or do not do.
How about a gransnet campaign to discourage supermarkets from having special offers on sugary foods?

I think Jamie Oliver's idea to print how many teaspoons of sugar are in soft drinks a better idea. People don't realise 5g is a teaspoon. With clear understandable information they can then make an informed choice and hopefully the right one. Without profits no funding of bias science. Remember the cigarette companies told us smoking was safe with research papers backing them .

Thanks for making that clear. I agree that it is the responsibility of everyone to educate. I just don't think people should have to educate themselves to overcome the lies of more powerful people who should be acting responsibly in the first place.
For example, every time we have these debates we get people saying that schools should teach cooking (you and I know that they do). I think that all of us who know how to cook, should all pass on our skills. We are all responsible for the education of the next generation.

Further to my comment about not all education happening in schools, I actually think most education where attitudes are concerned doesn't happen in schools.

I realise that's a separate issue, though it is connected.

Yes, everyone has a duty to act responsibly. Everyone including parents who, I think, do know what is good food and what isn't, and who can say no to a whining or even tantrumming child and can explain why they are saying no, and can offer alternatives. If my kids were hungry when we were out the choice was a bread roll or a banana.

My mother educated me. She told me her rule about buying sweets and it was this: she never bought sweets when shopping with children. Never. So after the first two or three times we never asked because we knew the answer would be no.

That is education and pretty much any parent could do it if they wanted to.

Not all education happens in schools.

Bags with the best will in the world not everyone is going to be able to educate their way past the misinformation put out by vested interests. I really don't see why schools, who have lots of other important things to do, should have to devote time and effort to countering the lies and distortions of irresponsible companies. Do these companies not have any kind of responsibility to behave ethically?
I realise that you are taking the libertarian position in this, but in that case I don't see why it should then be the job of the education system to put things right.
Surely everyone in society has a duty to act responsibly?

And Jamie O is getting chubby too. Long may it continue. (evil cackle)

And if and when they reduce the size of chocolate sweets, they had better reduce the price as well. Some hopes!

The government just need to stop the shops putting ridiculously cheap offers on sweets near the tills and checkouts. No more 'buy 4 for a pound'. And no more making huge packs of biscuits much cheaper than a normal size packet.

And bloody Jamie Oliver should go and boil his head.

x posts, wilma. Will read yours now.

Some people not using the education they've been given applies to all areas of human life, not just to food choices. I still think the number of well or better educated people is increasing and will continue to increase.

The government and even doctors have misinformed us as well as the food industry. Education is the best weapon against misinformation but people have to be free to choose whether to use the weapon. Attitudes take time to change and education is the best way to make them change.

Last year Mexico was the first country to introduce a sugar tax and at that time it was reported that so far, there is no conclusive evidence from any country in the world that raising the price of sugar-sweetened drinks will affect obesity levels. The Mexico experiment is on an unprecedented scale and is forecast to prevent up to 630,000 cases of diabetes by 2030.

I posted earlier on here about Arkansas' 10 year plan to tackle obesity and it includes limits on sugary drinks offered by public sector employers. When I read the plan I was impressed and thought it was just the kind of approach we need. But I doubt it was easy to get through the State legislator and needed strong leadership.

I do think the government has a responsibility to tackle the obesity problem because it is responsible for public health. When tenders go out for school meals contracts, etc. healthy eating is part of the requirement, so I don't see why it can't place restrictions on what is sold in public sector buildings. Every hospital I attend has soft drinks machines in the corridor and that doesn't make sense to me. It's also a receipt development and would not have happened 20 years ago.

Personal choice and responsibility is part of the answer, but surely it goes hand in hand sensible direction from government?