Ban high-sugar cereals to tackle child obesity, says Andy Burnham

[Northerner]

The government should ban high-sugar cereals such as Coco Pops and other foods that are contributing to an obesity epidemic among British children, the shadow health secretary has urged.

Regulations limiting the amount of sugar, salt and fat in processed foods should be considered if the food industry does not take action itself, according to Labour's Andy Burnham, who has begun a consultation on how to tackle obesity.

Burnham highlighted the case of breakfast cereals, saying many aimed at children are more than one-third sugar by weight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/05/ban-sugary-cereals-child-obesity

These suggestions are idiotic really, everything is looked at so simplistically! I grew up eating weetabix caked in sugar, frosties, sugar puffs, bread and dripping, toast dripping with butter and goodness knows what else! So did most of my peers, and yet there was usually only one or two overweight children in the class throughout my school life. Breakfast cereals may be a factor, but banning them is not a solution - it depends on so many other things, like what they eat for the rest of the day, how active they are, what opportunities to get active are available, how adventurous their parents allow them to be, their role models and examples, their body image, the marketing they are subjected to - I would run out of computer ink if I listed it all! People are incredibly complex! 🙄

 

[LeeLee]

Legislation will never fix the problem. In my opinion, snacking and the availability of unhealthy junk to graze on between meals is a far larger problem. These snacks do not contribute anything to the diet except calories, yet try to find a fresh banana in any corner shop.

 

[Twitchy]

Our primary school is supposedly a 'healthy school' (govt gimmick), yet every single fundraining activity seems to be obsessively linked to flogging sweets & chocolate, sugary fizzy drinks etc to the kids (school disco, Christmas fair etc)...& recently they started selling milk shakes & fruit juice (as in the cartons I used to use to treat hypos!) at lunch time. Talk about mixed messages!!! 😱 Especially given that they weighed all the kids recently & sent snotty letters home to the parents of kids with overweight etc bmi. Thankfully several parents complained & they stopped selling drinks, just need them to stop trying to ram sugar down the kids necks at every opportunity now... 🙄

 

[Northerner]

Our primary school is supposedly a 'healthy school' (govt gimmick), yet every single fundraining activity seems to be obsessively linked to flogging sweets & chocolate, sugary fizzy drinks etc to the kids (school disco, Christmas fair etc)...& recently they started selling milk shakes & fruit juice (as in the cartons I used to use to treat hypos!) at lunch time. Talk about mixed messages!!! 😱 Especially given that they weighed all the kids recently & sent snotty letters home to the parents of kids with overweight etc bmi. Thankfully several parents complained & they stopped selling drinks, just need them to stop trying to ram sugar down the kids necks at every opportunity now... 🙄

Yes, I suppose that is something that has changed a lot since my schooldays - we used to have proper two-course meals for school dinners and there was far less snacking or fizzy/sugary drinks consumed. I remember my mum used to give us a little bag of cocoa mixed with sugar that you would dip your finger into for a snack which would last ages so not a lot of actual sugar consumed - wonder if kids would turn their noses up at that these days?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Sigh!

The sugar on those cereals is not the problem with them. I dispair about the fixation with sugar as the 'enemy', when its reputation for speed of absorption and calorific emptiness applies almost equally to the cereal they gloop it onto!

As you say Alan, there's a lot more to it than that - and there needs to be a general cultural shift away from constant eating/snacking to have any effect.

 

[mcdonagh47]

Sigh!

As you say Alan, there's a lot more to it than that - and there needs to be a general cultural shift away from constant eating/snacking to have any effect.

That's why the original statement included the phrase "contributing to". Did you and Northerner miss that ?
Nobody was simplistically suggesting that high sugar cereals are the only problem.

 

[HOBIE]

Good for the mp, Sticking his neck out & making some noise to sort the "food industry" out !!!!

 

[Northerner]

That's why the original statement included the phrase "contributing to". Did you and Northerner miss that ?
Nobody was simplistically suggesting that high sugar cereals are the only problem.

Well, no - my point was that cereals today are exactly what I used to eat, so picking them out and legislating about them is not going to change anything. Kids will probably just pour extra sugar on them anyway. It's more about how that sugar is used once consumed. How many kids walk to school today, and what do they do at break and lunchtimes? We used to have big playgrounds and a big field at my secondary school - all built-up now. You weren't allowed out of school at lunchtimes unless you were going home for lunch, so no going to the chippy to fill your face with chips instead of getting a (stodgy, yes) more balanced meal (and one that you had very little choice about). Maybe portion size with breakfasts is part of the problem - do kids actually just eat more than we used to (I have no idea, not having any kids)?

 

[Pumper_Sue]

Biggest problem is children today come home from school and sit in front of the tv and or the computer.
During my school days it was home from school, do your homework eat tea and out of the door until bedtime. (Execise)

 

[trophywench]

Well, I think any woman who lived through the War ought to know about portion control and nutrition since the Min of Food ably assisted by one Marguerite Patten, from the Good Housekeeping Institute specifically taught em about it. Mary Berry of Great British Bake-Off fame worked for the GHI and the Electricity Board. Also well into the 1970's the Milk Marketing Board did fantastic recipe books and all sorts of nutritional info.

Unfortunately for whatever reason some of these ladies weren't good parents and didn't pass on what they knew to their kids .........

 

[mcdonagh47]

Well, no - my point was that cereals today are exactly what I used to eat, so picking them out and legislating about them is not going to change anything.[\QUOTE]

well, no - you dismissed Burnham's suggestion as "idiotic" and "simplistic" because a lot of other factors were involved. But Burnham knows that - that's why the phrase "contributing to" was used. And that's why the title of this thread is wrong.
But what are you suggesting - that no contributing factor can be tackled because there so many of them ? It wasn't an either/or suggestion from Burnham, he wants action in the whole of this area.
And how do you know these high sugar breakfast cereals are exactly the same as in your youth, we're being told at the moment that these things are being laced with that high fructose corn syrup.
Your statement above appears to be a non-sequitur( there is no logical connection between the two halves).
Legislating to significantly raise the price of high sugar breakfast cereals would almost certainly affect their consumption.

 

[Tina63]

A few thoughts from me:

My skinny brother used to eat AT LEAST 14, yes 14 Weetabix A DAY, every day, caked in half an inch of sugar and full fat milk. He is, and always was, a bag of bones. We had full fat milk, proper butter, puddings with custard or a milk pudding every day, but like others, were very active. We walked/biked to school (a mile away), we spent the whole of the school holidays outdoors, biking miles to other villages, meeting other children to play with, and being out for 8-10 hours a day in the summer. We swam daily in our primary school swimming pool when the weather was warm enough, again spending hours each day down there. I even remember cycling to my grandparents regularly when aged only 5 or 6 and that was a full 5 miles away, up and down hills. Children these days are more interested in playing on their DSs, computers, mobile phones, watching the tv or playing on games consoles. Cycling isn't as safe as it was back then, there are way too many cars to make it very safe in most areas, and children just aren't allowed out to play on their own anymore. Nowadays children expect to be driven everywhere, or at least jump on a bus. Walking is a major deal to them. Things have changed so much.

All food we ate though was home cooked from scratch. We mostly ate meat (fish on Fridays) and veg, including potatoes and as I said, always a pudding. Roast on Sundays, cold leftover meat and veg on Mondays!

I am a childminder and have over 20 years experience. All the children I look after bring their own packed lunches and some bring an evening meal for me to warm up for them. Once upon a time I used to cook for them, but it got a joke when I had half a dozen children from four or five different families, all having different tastes, and me struggling to cook any meal that all the children would eat. I ended up wasting so much. The one and only thing children these days seem to want to eat is PASTA. Children are so lazy with food. They don't seem to be able to use a knife, they all chase food around a plate with a fork. I remember eating the most ropey bits of meat when I was young, but you were made to chew and chew and you were never allowed to spit it out. Meat is a hundred times better quality these days, but children now act as if you are trying to poison them with the smallest piece of roast meat, they just won't eat it. Vegetables too, many will only eat one or two vegetables. Ask what they would like, and they all say Pasta. It's easy. It's soft. No effort to chew or swallow it. But most put either bolognese, pesto or cheese sauce on it, and many invariably smother it with cheese too. So many children end up with constipation too, as they don't have enough roughage in their diets.

Lunchboxes. Well in our day we had cooked school dinners. Pretty good quality too. Again, meat, veg, potatoes and pudding. Very occasionally we had spaghetti bolognese (I think it had just been invented in the 70's ) but mostly it was potatoes for carbs. And water for a drink.

Childrens lunchboxes today - well I would say about 75% of the children I look after have pretty dire lunchboxes, despite all the media hype about them.

I do have one family whose lunchboxes are wonderful, yesterday they had crackers, cheese, ham, cucumber, celery, crisps, yoghurt & apple. But this is an exceptional luncbox. Many have the chocolate spread, cakes, biscuits, crisps, just a token 6 or 7 grapes if they are lucky.

There are all these awful snacky things on the market too aimed at children, some of which are just junk, some encourage awful table manners. Cheese strings, what are they all about? They encourage children to pick the cheese to pieces. Now they make cheese strings spaghetti too. Ok, I appreciate children need some fat and the protein & calcium cheese offers, but just a slice or two in a sandwich would suffice. Dairylea dips. All sorts of salt rich biscuity/crisp type things to dip into the cheese. Mini packs of chocolate rich biscuits. Individual wrapped cakes. What's wrong with a meat egg or cheese sandwich, a yoghurt and and apple/banana/satsuma or two?

And snacking. What's that all about??? In the good old days you had 3 square meals a day, and if you were lucky, a cup of warm milk (and sometimes a biscuit) at bedtime. You were properly hungry and tucked in heartily to your meal, even the bits you weren't too fond of. These days children seem to want to graze all day long, and it seems to be encouraged. Playgroups, nurseries and infant classes all seem to provide snacks for mid morning and mid afternoon. If the children ate a decent breakfast they shouldn't need to snack. We didn't. I don't think children really understand what hunger really feels like anymore, they are always half full. They nibble on the junk then can't eat the healthy bits off their plates. I only ever provide a bit of a snack after school for those not getting an evening meal until probably 6ish, then I offer fruit/veg cut up, and sometimes some cubes of cheese. It's not meant to be a meal.

Oh dear, look what you've started now!

 

[Northerner]

Hehe, good rant Tina! 🙂

 

[HOBIE]

Canny rant Tina, Well said 😎

 

[Tina63]

I'm good at ranting, in fact I'd go as far as to say I think I am a professional

 

[Lizzzie]

Enjoying the heat of this debate so thought would add :0).

I do think penalising sugary breakfast cereal companies is a bit unfair as there are plenty other Commonly contributing sugar sources not being penalised; why single them out?? - because the Public, having read the media hype, understand that one so the MP is more likely to win votes from it?

Instead, why not reduce taxes on pre-prepared foods eg cereals approved by dieticians on a scientific, health-related basis. So the wholesome, not sugar-laced cereals will become comparable in price and people's perception about the cost of healthy food will change so that they look at it.

It's alright saying 'look what people are feeding their kids how ignorant they are' . you only have to look at the competitive lunch-boxing at many middle-class catchment schools to realise that the middle classes do this for one-Up-man- ship and only need to look round Morrisons to realise that a packet if sugary stuff is a lot cheaper than a packet of good quality cereal and wholemeal bread costs more than White sliced.

Sure, there are plenty in the working classes who skimp on money spent on food so they can afford other luxuries. But if healthy food costs were comparable to less healthy food costs, the temptation wouldn't be there.

 

[Vicsetter]

I would suggest that this is a political stance promoted by some unknown entity. The title of this thread is that given by the Guardian news reporter. But why is he targetting breakfast cereals, why not sweets, yes coco-pops are very high in sugar, but rice crispies, cornflakes, crunchy nut are all <20% sugar and yes they do have fructose syrup (not sure if it's HFCS) but it's well down the list of ingredients. Strangely Bran Flakes is quite high in carb content, although <20% sugar. Honey nut loops are 62% carbs but where would they be without the honey?

Do kids no longer eat Mars Bars (70% carbs), sherbert dabs, lollipops, etc etc. No lets tax rock, sherbert lemons, aniseed balls, milky war (the sweet you can eat between meals) 72% carb etc, etc. It's just ludicrous and another example of government gone mad.
I am currently in the middle of reading 'Bad Science' and there seems to be a lot going on here. Where is the scientific study which states what is responsible for the causes of obesity in children. Where is the proof that government intervention in any market produces a decline in consumption, do we consume less petrol as prices rise?, are we smoking less, drinking less. We have seen the price of bread increase a lot in the last few years and I am not aware of a decline in bread consumption. I do note an increase in people frequenting fast food outlets (name no names).

to quote Mr Burnham: "Like all parents, I have bought products like cereals and fruit drinks, marketed as more healthy, that contained higher sugar levels than expected," he told the Daily Telegraph. "I don't think that any parent would be comfortable with their child eating something that is 40% sugar."

The answer is there in front of you, educate the children and the parents (but that costs money doesn't it). I use to smoke, but my children don't , but at a very early age came home saying 'bad daddy moking'. It's about time Mr Burnham took a leaf out of his own book and started reading the labels on products he buys instead of reading the marketing blurb. Maybe he should get some research done to find out the causes of obesity before proposing legislation.

 

[Twitchy]

I wonder if the reason breakfast cerealse was targeted is the assumption that people are assuming that cereal = healthy (ie cereal vs a full fry up) & not realising how sugary they are? Ie with some cereals it's almost like they have an amount of stealthy sugar added, that people might not be aware of & might not tske into account, whereas if you're spooning sugar onto weeetabix you can see exactly what you're adding?

I think we need to remember that as diabetics we're far more likely to a) bother reading & b) understand the nutrition panels on the back of things. I've been gobsmacked by other parents thinking that a frosties cereal bar would be an acceptable breakfast for a five year old, plus when I casually mdmtioned that the sugars in pure oj are more or less the same per 100ml as coke (dep on brand obviously), jaws literally dropped. People are surprisingly trusting - if the big friendly tiger on tv tells them this is a grrrrrreat breakfast for kids, they think 'the govt has standards for ads, so it must be true'. 🙄

Sorry if that seems patronising, it's mot meant to be- it's just observations from chats with other mums.

 

[Northerner]

I wonder if the reason breakfast cerealse was targeted is the assumption that people are assuming that cereal = healthy (ie cereal vs a full fry up) & not realising how sugary they are? Ie with some cereals it's almost like they have an amount of stealthy sugar added, that people might not be aware of & might not tske into account, whereas if you're spooning sugar onto weeetabix you can see exactly what you're adding?

I think we need to remember that as diabetics we're far more likely to a) bother reading & b) understand the nutrition panels on the back of things. I've been gobsmacked by other parents thinking that a frosties cereal bar would be an acceptable breakfast for a five year old, plus when I casually mdmtioned that the sugars in pure oj are more or less the same per 100ml as coke (dep on brand obviously), jaws literally dropped. People are surprisingly trusting - if the big friendly tiger on tv tells them this is a grrrrrreat breakfast for kids, they think 'the govt has standards for ads, so it must be true'. 🙄

Sorry if that seems patronising, it's mot meant to be- it's just observations from chats with other mums.

No. I think you do have a very good point. One of the problems that seems to have emerged is that marketeers are able to subtly deceive the public into thinking things are healthy by, for example, labelling them as 'low-fat' and then stuffing them full of salt or sugar. There has been quite a demonising of fat over the years to the point where a lot of people think that is the only unhealthy component to look out for.

p.s. your post was the 400,000th post to the forum Twitchy! 🙂

 

[Tina63]

I know this debate is really about breakfast cereal, but actually loads of kids these days have toast and chocolate spread for breakfast - not cereals!

And the whole eating thing, well it's got a lot more to do with convenience foods than just the damn cereal. Takeaways. Microwave meals. Ready made jars/cans/plastic containers of ready made sauces. Eating out, invariably involving some chips/creamy sauce/sickly pudding.

30-40 years ago eating out was a rare treat. You went to your Nan's where again you got meat and two veg. Takeaways, well I didn't eat a Chinese or Indian before I was 21! Now children are brought up on them.

Working parents don't have the time mums did in previous generations. Who wants to get home at 6pm with two tired children, then turn round and prepare all the vegetables and a casserole, and wait 2 hours before it's all ready? It just doesn't happen. Family life has changed so much in just a generation or two.

What would my mum say? We need a war to sort them all out!