Childhood obesity strategy "lite"

has anyone noticed the size of many of the nurses who "tut tut" at your weight probably weigh more than you do!!!!

I was a skinny child, my Mum once took me to GP as she was concerned - nothing wrong. Now in my 60s I am overweight not an easy problem for me to overcome as I am on Anti-Epilepsy medication (slows metabolism down), have Arthritis which means I cannot walk far - I used to love walking so even gentle exercise is difficult & sometimes very painful.

I also developed Type 2 Diabetes about 4 years ago.I now follow a balanced diet & watch my portion control but weight won't budge.

I don't want Government to interfere but believe that education is better. I do agree to eat the best diet of good quality food is more expensive but despite now being on my own (widowed) I cook from scratch & avoid fads etc,

I have always held the belief that being overweight is a complex problem, with not one 'easy fix'. An Aunt and Uncle were grossly overweight, but we're used to eating vast quantities of expensive quality food.

A niece has been overweight since childhood. She is the middle of three children, the other two are slim, as are the parents. Her parents are professionals who buy quality food.

In both cases I believe there is more to the problem than ignorance, poverty and cheap food.

I was brought up on home made food and I brought my children up on homemade food. None My children are obese.
If this government doesn't lay down the law nothing will be done about this problem.
The government took drastic action regarding, seat belts, drink driving, safe sex, smoking etc and now we accept what they did, as sensible and right.

Obesity is a huge PROBLEM as my DCs who are Doctors tell me frequently.

I don't think that the government has any option but to step in, as those who need to listen, will not listen. I have relatives who are far from poor who eat far too much. If they thought they would be denied access to certain medical procedures, such as new knees, unless they lost weight, perhaps they would see sense.

I myself struggle with my weight and I am a size 12 , ( sometimes 14 ) if I indulge too much. So I know it is not easy. But then whoever said eating healthily and exercising frequently, was?
The question posed was , ' whose fault is it? It is the Governments fault for allowing most processed food ( supposidly savoury or sweet) to contain sugar, allowing unclear labelling on food and cutting PE in schools. Parents for allowing their DCs to snack on empty calories and not exercising enough.

I agree janeayressister. The governement should have done it's part, and not got lobbied and swayed by the food and drinks industry.
I hope this is not the start of Theresa May listening to lobbies, and not understanding the poor very well in society.

I wonder how many members of the government have financial links to the sugar industry which might go back to investment in slavery.

Apart from that as a bit of an aside) I am sure that many of the powerful in government have strongly vested interests in many industries whose marketing practices cover some decidedly dodgy business with dealings in producing products that do damage to the environment and public health.

have a look at this.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11373080/The-10-most-sugary-breakfast-cereals.html

People don't cook anymore. My neighbours bring in takeaways every day! They are in a Housing Trust Property and work. The recycling bin is full of fast food containers. They drive everywhere, they're not fat yet as they also smoke, which I understand keeps them slim. When I was young everything was cooked. Yes, my Mum worked, although part-time as most Mum's did in the 50's. Our Sunday Joint lasted a few days. We were quite hard up. Nourishing food can be made cheaply. I still use my Mum's basic recipes now.

Please could someone post an example of "unclear" food labelling. The labels I read are always very clear about ingredients, the proportions of fats and sugars and the number of calories per helping or per 100g.

thatbags I find that the information is all there, but it can sometimes be ambiguous. Another thing: I can barely see it!

However, if you're motivated enough to look at a label you're probably motivated enough to attempt to understand it.

In that case, easy enough. However I bet most people don't even bother. In which case, labelling probably won't make a difference, clear or not.

An example for you bags ...mars bars and snickers. Usually their info is hidden under that fold in the paper and very hard to find never mind read.

Which is of course why I never eat them

anya I'm with you on labelling; however nutritional information is easily accessible via other sources and takes seconds to look up.

People who want to know, will make sure they do.

True, anya and goab about the small print etc. But anyone who actually wants to know can find out because the information is there and freely available. I have yet to find a label where "sugars" was/were ambiguous.

Plus, with a Mars bar and similar stuff, anyone with two brain cells knows it's nearly all sugar.

Don't they?

Sorry, goab, I see I've repeated what you said: that anyone who wants to can find out what is in their food.

Thatbags I believe you have a high level of scientific education. Therefore I expect you find it quite easy to look at food labelling and work out what the information about ingredients and nutritional contents means. However many of the parents who have overweight kids don't have that advantage.
Here's the information on Cheerios breakfast cereal for those who don't have a packet (and a magnifying glass) to hand. It is awash with confusing information.
I think it would require a grasp of science equivalent to an A level to get your head around all this information, along with pretty good arithmetic. I could write quite a challenging set of exam questions e.g.

If a your child serves herself with 10 spoonfuls of cheerios and eats them in front of the TV without the addition of milk, what % of her daily recommended amount is she consuming for:
a/ calories, b/fibre c/ Vitamin C.
??

www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=261370566

I agree with you, Jess. I have a problem with omitting the total amount of carbohydrates from the main colour-coded label (although it's there underneath). The reason for that is that I eat a low carb diet and the total carbs aren't always quite so obvious..

Sausage rolls and Mars Bars don't make people fat. Eating too many calories lead to obesity. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned portion control as a way of cutting down childhood obesity.

PS. I realise that a diet made up of 100% sausage rolls and Mars Bars would lead to maltnutrition, but that's a different issue.

I think one of the easiest things to target should be sugary drinks. Zero nutritional benefit, bad for teeth and water is cheaper.
Don't want to repeat my nine suggestions for action from earlier in the thread, but a public health campaign ought to be fairly easy for that.

We have a government that chooses not to spend money on health education advertising. You're supposed to go and look for the information on the web these days. Tricky if you cant afford a computer or smart phone.

One of the problems with schools is that "free schools" and academies in England are allowed to do their own thing. Under the Blair government state schools were not allowed to sell sugary drinks or confectionary on the premises and school dinners were highly regulated e.g. you were not allowed to serve chips every day. In academies and free schools they can make their own policies.

I think it is more complicated than that and only applies to Academies started between certain dates. Have to say the Academy my eldest GD attends has a pretty good policy which is implemented in the food available, though.

Here you go
"The school food standards apply to all maintained schools, and academies that were founded before 2010 and after June 2014. They must provide:
high-quality meat, poultry or oily fish
fruit and vegetables
bread, other cereals and potatoes
There can’t be:
drinks with added sugar, crisps, chocolate or sweets in school meals and vending machines
more than 2 portions of deep-fried, battered or breaded food a week".

My GD's school was founded between thise dates but has obviously chosen to adhere to the policy.

I was thinking about the way French schools enforce the healthy three-course lunch across the whole country. Firstly it is very rare for packed lunches to be allowed, lunchtime is an hour and a half and if you don't like school lunches, you take them home and feed them (not many do). This means that even our little tots leave the village on the school bus just after eight and are delivered back at about 5.45. Can't see that going down well in the UK?

But no foods are inherently fattening, including cheerios. What's causing obesity is eating too much of the wrong things. We are falling into the trap of demonising certain foods, without thinking about the impact our overall diet is having on our waistlines. Together with lack of activity, too much food, and particularly too much of the wrong food, is a toxic combination.

We know where we are going wrong. But it's easier for many people to blame poor education and poor labelling for the crisis when in fact the problem for many of us is lack of discipline and willpower. It's actually quite simple.

Eat less, move more. Or more specifically, eat substantially less and move substantially more. And stick with it.

And Anya's posts re learning how to cook meals from scratch, and easy access for all to fruit and veg.

I don't think one needs a high level of scientific knowledge to look at and understand the basic information on food labels. You only have to look at values per 100g and compare that with other similar products.

So, using the example jess gave of Cheerios:
- calories per 100g = 378
- carbohydrates per 100g = 74g
- of which sugars per 100g = 21g

I happen to have some Jordans Country Crisp Chunky Nuts cereal in my cupboard, which I eat sometimes with an own brand fruit and fibre cereal. Jordans box has:

- calories per 100g = 477
- carbs = 58.7
- sugars = 18.8

So it's higher in calories but lower in carbs and sugar. Surely it doesn't take much food knowledge to know that it's probably the nuts that are providing the extra calories and accounting for the lower sugar content? The nuts also provide more fat, more protein, and more fibre. Better food value, in short.

You don't have to read the whole blurb to get a good idea from a food packet.

Another basic idea is the order in which ingredients are listed because the proportions are listed in descending order. So, for example from Jordans packet: wholegrain cereals, sugar, nuts and then a few peripherals. Compare with the Cheerios: wholegrain cereals, sugar, peripherals.

Food value-wise, not a lot of difference between them, then, except for the nuts.

I think companies who add all this sugar in their foods and drink should also be accountable as well as us the consumers who are having to pay the sugar tax!

If people who have been to school for twelve or thirteen years can't make some useful sense of food labels in this way, then our schools are failing and we should sack all the teachers.

Silly? Yes, it is. People are not that stupid or uneducated. Stop making excuses for them in such a patronising way, jess. I'm not saying that in a nasty way but I really do think your view of people's thinking ability re food is patronising.

I also think people know full well that consistently eating less than they want to eat will ensure that, slowly but surely, they will lose weight. The problem is not lack of knowledge; the problem is that eating less than you really feel like eating over a long period is hard. It's a very recent thing we've had to adapt to in evolutionary terms so it's going to remain hard for most people for quite a few generations to come, I reckon.

I still maintain that the information is there for anyone who wants to use it and you don't have to use very much of it to garner a very good idea of what's in a food. Even without reading labels, I reckon people know, for example, that buying plain porridge oats and eating it with some raisins, or even some syrup (or chocolate spread like my grandsons have) is not only cheaper but also better food value than prepared and fancy packeted stuff. But they don't like it as much. There's the rub.

The food manufacturers are there to make a profit for their shareholders, mumsy. My food choices and my health are not their responsibility and I wouldn't want them to be. Freedom of choice is good. Suffering the consequences of unhealthy choices is not good, just inevitable reality. I think it is wrong to blame someone else.