Do We Want Further 'nanny State' Controls?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-calls-for-cut-in-sugar-in-food-would-see-some-breakfast-cereals-banned-8439388.html

Yes many reject politician's controls on such matters as turning our country into a 'Nanny State, and I agree at times they can go a little too far.

But in this matter have Labour got a point, isn't it about time that manufacturers paid attention into what they put in our food and drink products?

These excessive sugary cereals should be banned, but then how are they to reduce sugar levels in other children's favourite items such as confectionery?

[rojash]

There is mounting evidence that a fundamental cause of the obesity epidemic is the incorporation of high levels of fructose in manufactured foods. "Low fat" foods often contain fructose to replace the fat content. Most people have no idea that what they consider to be a reasonable diet is actually a very high sugar diet.

The behaviour of manufacturers in this regard is just as cynical as that of the tobacco companies in the 60s and 70s. Yes, governments should take action to protect the public from this kind of abuse.

[LazyGun]

The critical components that might shape the health of the nation fundamentally comes down to 3 important components; fat, sugar and salt.

We should be unduly concerned about regulations on food marketed for adults, but we should have concerns over food marketed for kids, since dietary habits picked up in childhood will likely remain throughout your adult life.

Not many people can consider themselves truly informed about healthy quantities of food to eat, and that goes double for kids. We are increasingly reliant upon manufacturers, and in that overall climate of ignorance the current labelling systems are not the most helpful.

We see, time and time again, in all areas of endevour, that voluntary codes of practice, self-regulated, are often abused of just ignored, so providing greater regulatory controls particularly for food marketed specifically for chlidren would be a good thing.

We currently regulate the nutritional contents of food marketed for babies up to one year of age and no one regards that as to interventional, restrictive or unnecessary - just extend those regulations to age 5-6 would probably have some value.

[Mick-Talbot]

since dietary habits picked up in childhood will likely remain throughout your adult life.

Absolutley...... But I think lazy parenting is at fault here, not the manufacturers of cereals.

[hc4361]

When I was a child my breakfast cereal was a choice of porridge, weetabix, shredded wheat or cornflakes. Other cereals were available but my mother wouldn't buy them.

I did, however, ladel spoonfuls of sugar on to it, and drink copious amounts of very sweet tea from infancy.

[emmie]

that was the word i was searching for in answer to another thread, fructose, indeed the culprit or one of, causing the high levels of obesity in people.

[argorstran]

The thing that worries me is if the manufacturers are forced to cut the sugar content they will compensate by adding larger amounts of artificial sweetener such as aspartame . This could cause just as much damage to health . I'd rather stick with sugar .

[emmie]

the series of programmes i watched cited American farmers who were encouraged to grow more corn, so they could get the by product fructose, a cheap and seemingly deadly additive to much of our foodstuffs. Going on one of the experts, the stuff is highly addictive, so it's added in, thus making you crave more, as he said a very cynical ploy by the food industry bigwigs.

[sandyRoe]

The government should direct the bakers to cut the amount of salt they put in bread. Just 3 slices have almost 6 grammes, almost the entire recommended daily intake for an adult.

[pdq1]

In October 2012 the major supermarkets agreed to the new colour coded scheme for foods which will be prominently displayed. Unlike the old system which didn't mean very much and was so confusing the new system harmful levels will jump out at you. Even a semi blind person will not fail to notice.

Labour is a bit behind the times on this one.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/traffic-light-food-labelling-system-1395171

[Gromit]

Food labelling is not the solution. Cigarettes have had health warning labelling on them for forty years yet they continue to be sold in large quantities. People do not look at them or ignore them. The same happens with the traffic light labels. The supermarkets that have been trailing them do not report any major change in eating habits, a that is the goal here.

Removing (or not adding) excess salt, sugar and fat at source renders warning labels unnecessary.

We instantly ban toys that are dangerous to children, yet seem prepared to feed them harmful foods.

[LazyGun]

I could not disagree more Gromit. Health warnings on packets, public warnings on TV etc about the dangers of smoking, coupled with increasing the price of tobacco, changing cultural attitudes to smoking, banning smoking in offices, pubs, clubs etc have hugely effected the numbers of people smoking - now at an all-time low. and on a downward trend still.

So labelling can have some valuje. Education about food groups, the dangers of obesity etc all will play their part in improving the health of the nation.

That is not to say the pressure should not be maintained on manufacturers to further reduce levels of fat, salt and sugar in their pre-prepared meals, and although there has been some improvements with a voluntary code of conduct, extending the leglslation around maximum quantities of such food components in childrens foods would make sense and speed up the pace of change to healthier options for pre-prepared meals. In the meanwhile, a simple and easy to use labelling system, like the traffic light system, can aid the public in improving food selection.