School lunches

Coconut oil is very saturated fat!

Mama don' want no peas and an' rice, an' coconut oil...

I used to put coconut oil on my hair, because someone said it made it grow faster!

Some supermarkets now say "no trans-fats in own products". Sadly not in cakes and biscuits.

J08 the jury is out on coconut oil. Many think it has beneficial effects in lowering cholesterol, but the biochemistry is quite complicated
Bags I am sure you are right that the food industry follows demand. There was a programme about supermarkets last week showing a scientist who had spent 8 (yes 8) years developing a new strawberry - and it would only be developed and marketed if the panel of testers thought it was better than existing strawberries - it had to be sweeter, firmer, less likely to get crushed etc.
Granjura I don't doubt what you say about the execrable nature of many children's diets and the longterm effects on children's health. But I don't think that banning packed lunches is the way forward.

Granjura That is an alarming read. I agree with Bags about many members of the Government having individual and party political fingers in the pie of many of these industries. This is why so many of these health improvement ideas have been shelved.

Baggy I use coconut oil to cook my eggs too but never beef or lard. errk

I wouldn't take a lot of notice of anything on that website! '

Any particular reason j08? At least it is arguing both ways. Do you detect a lack of scientific rigour perhaps?

Even if we have Packed Lunch Monitors sending home ticklists of what was good and bad in Junior's lunch, and confiscating forbidden foods, I can't see how it could work. Unless of course we set guidelines for nutritional targets and punish parents who fail to improve/achieve. Now that would be interesting!

janeainsworth, if you read my previous posts, I do not agree with banning packed lunches - partly because it is the only option for my grandson with a life threatening allergy to egg and some nuts. I do not know what the answer is - better education and support for parents? And yes, the food industry lobbies need to be fought, hard- and the government needs to stop this hypocrisy of saying one thing, and then supporting the food industry's shadowy deals under the table.

What I am objecting to here, is the fact that most people agree that child abuse is not acceptable and that children need to be protected from such. And yet, despite all the research showing the enormous impact of poor diet (and by that I do not mean 'poor' in monetary terms. It is possible to cook excellent nutritious food for less than a £1 a head- which is often cheaper than ready meals)- on so many fronts, we should somehow ignore this and 'it's none of society's' business. Either we do protect children (and I think we should) or we do not. Many people constantly talk about peodophiles and abduction - when the real dangers are ignored. I don't get it.

Nobody's told this lot that coconut oil is ok.

jane, I love your last post.

Granjura The word 'abuse' is an emotive one, and it is not one that I think should be applied to parents who for whatever reason, through poverty or ignorance, or even just laziness, give their children crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks. Providing a child with a poor diet is just not in the same league as physical or sexual abuse, and by extending the use of the word to other behaviours, there's a danger that the word becomes in some way diluted and has less impact.
Yes, it's bad, it's sad, but it's not criminal, and unless you want to live in a police state, education and explicit food labelling are all you can do.

j08 Nobody seems to have told them either that high sugar consumption is the main cause of metabolic syndrome, one of the results of which is cardiovascular disease.

Bags

They would be totally against a high sugar diet! Of course they know that.

One for you too (not a bitchy one though)

j08 The public health messages put out by the BHF and the Government have consistently promoted a low-fat diet and ignored the effects of sugar, when there is increasing evidence that they are wrong about fats and it is sugar which is the harmful element in most peole's diets.

Yes. And that's why I'm not afraid of saturated fats.

It's all a load of [*O*]
The fuss about cholesterol is mainly unproven.
Incidentally there is an article in the BMJ this week about disclosure of clinical trials.

I'm sure they are both harmful - saturated fats and too much sugar. There is plenty of advice to that effect out there.

From BHF website (healthy diet recommendations): "only a small amount of foods and drinks high in fats and/or sugar."

I hear what you say Jane - but I used the word carefully, actually. Many seem to have a distorted and unbalanced view of risk. Like the friend who refused to take the pill, because it is 'dangerous' but was happy to smoke and drink heavily. Or the parents who refuse to immunize a child against really dangerous childhood diseases, because of totally unproved other risks.

Giving substances to a child (not occasionally- but to such an extent that it causes basic lack of essential nutrition/vitamins, and/or obesity) that would cause so much health, educational and other proven damage would be considered as criminal - so what difference does it make if it is in the form of food and drink? Does it- really? And therefore should society/the Government not care about the damage done? What is, really, the difference. Not to judge, but to help and support. It would be money very well spent.

I love butter and dripping. I AM NOT GIVING THEM UP

Where do you get dripping from, *Galen?' I rarely see it. When we had a specialist pork butchers nearby, it was always available, but that butcher retired and the shop closed down.

I've read all through these posts and frankly am amazed by some of them which seem to suggest that the national diet is ok, our kids should be allowed to eat what they want and anyone trying to alter the status quo is from the 'food police'.
Packed lunches are banned at my GS's school and school dinners are free. Meals strike the happy medium between fat-fest and super-healthy and are not rejected. Chips are only served on a Friday. Puddings are optional.
Special diets for medical or religious reasons are provided again free of charge.

That sounds ideal Aka but I would still like to know how, in a free country, you would deal with children and their parents who don't have a healthy diet.
What about children who are simply fussy eaters, of whom there are many?

"national diet"? Is there such a thing?