To be angry with Justine Roberts

[T1mum3]

For saying on Jamie Oliver's facebook live chat that we should tell children in primary schools that they will lose a limb due to diabetes if they don't eat right? I'm angry because amongst primary school age children in the UK 5355 have Type 1 diabetes, and 7 have Type 2. Type 1 is autoimmune so not related to lifestyle.

All those kids will be fighting day and night, taking around 6 injections a day or wearing an insulin pump (putting a cannula in every two days), pricking their fingers 10 times a day and counting every single morsel of carbohydrate that passes their lips to try and keep themselves well enough to go to school and take exercise. They don't need to know about amputations yet.

99 per cent of children with diabetes have Type 1. They are made more vulnerable to bullying everyday because of the obsession with childhood obesity.

Anyone who hasn't got the message about healthy diets and kids yet obviously needs some kind of intervention. Type 2 diabetes is a huge and growing issue. But making diabetes and amputations into a boogy man to scare small children is disgusting.

I really don't think I could piss on her achievements.

If the internet is as traceable as I believe, she knows who I am and that I've not achieved much !

This is an excellent example of why it is ridiculous to assume that because someone has been successful in one area of life their opinion should be sought on other matters.

Honestly, I don't understand why people in Justine's position don't say "I'm sorry, I can't comment on that" when asked to participate in things of which they have zero knowledge and understanding.

But MN is influential, OnceMore.

Which is precisely why posters are so annoyed. It's bad enough that a certain chef thinks he's Mr Know It All on obesity. People with influence within the parenting community should not be speaking on matters they obviously have little knowledge on. It's not helpful, and people like the OP and her child have yet again suffer through ignorance.

Don't get me wrong I completely agree with OP, Mummy. hence my rather uncalled for deletion ahem

I just don't agree with people getting personal.

MN can be influential, yes, by numbers. But that doesn't mean Justine herself is or should be. She doesn't speak for all of us, and I don't really see why she is even invited to speak on head things, TBH.

I wouldn't ask bill gates for advice on my ingrown toenail, nor would I ask my doctor for financial advice.

*these things

Justine

Bottom line, you don't go around telling children that they could lose a limb if they keep eating sugar when there are children who (are thought to) have the same illness through no fault of their own and are fighting hard to cope with it.

You wouldn't parade through a school telling children how dreadful lung cancer and AIDs were - and what awful things were likely to happen to them if they got these illnesses - if other children in the school were known to be fighting this illness.

It's ignorant, insensitive and frightening.

And diabetes in any form is not an uncommon illness. There will be children receiving that message thinking 'it's too late for me'.

How would you feel if you the mum of one of those kids, Justine? That's as personal as this needs to get.

We have heard from one poster on this thread who had diabetes in childhood and was terrified of physical damage. How many more children are currently living with that fear? Is it really justifiable to make their lives so much harder because you like shock tactics?

Is it?

Only if you think well children are worth more. Which, from your answers here, you seem to.

I've seen the MNHQ mantra repeated often that MN is here to make parents lives easier. Not to sit on panels pontificating without expertise or make a quick buck at the expense of the parents of sick children.

After that photograph of the OP's son and the failure to address how this strategy could make him feel, I'm a bit disgusted, frankly.

Headofthehive55 It depends on whether you think halving if the rate is significant and worth feeling positive about.

Of course it's worth feeling positive about, up to a point. Are you really not bothered that smoking prevalence has barely shifted in a decade? Do you not care about the remaining 20 odd %? If they all continue smoking that means 1/10 of the population of the UK die on average a decade early because of smoking.

Giving people information is not the same as shaming and blaming people. However, people have a right for this knowledge to be passed on and the risks and consequences of behaviours that they might undertake.

What has happened with smokers is not just giving them information, it has absolutely been shaming and blaming and that has absolutely done harm. The same happens with people who are overweight. Shame and stigma stop people from accessing help so their health worsens and by the time they are seen and properly helped they often have irreversible damage.

There are also a large number of people with T2 who have never been overweight. Other factors are are at play, but they are affected by the shaming and blaming of overweight people. Watch any documentary on type 2 and you will see an endless procession of fat people's abdomens filmed in the street without their knowledge or consent and without their faces. Then you have T1's who are unhelpfully lumped in with T2's. The whole thing is just cruel and counterproductive.

Often shock tactics are used: the belt up campaign and drink driving. Whether you think that is appropriate I don't know, but how you would get the message across in a different way is open to suggestions.

I don't think 'getting the message across' is all that helpful when it comes to health (Belt up and drink driving are to do with road safety not health). All the info is out there. I think most people who have a problem with weight, or smoking, or drinking, or drugs ... already have 'the message' - they know they are harming their health. What is needed is proper support, tailored to the actual issues that people are facing that make it difficult to make healthy choices.

I think we need to educate to help children have empathy, and to not blame.

This I agree with.

Ironically, we might be better off in the NHS encouraging obesity so at least people die earlier. Maybe this is a better public health tactic...

Seriously though most people are now expected to have a non-disabled life expectancy of around 63, with another 20 years of life ahead. Obesity is one of the main drivers of this.

slenderisthenight - You wouldn't parade through a school telling children how dreadful lung cancer ...

No, this happens, it's a core part of anti smoking education, along with dyed pig's lungs.

plenty

You spectacularly missed the point.

8 pages and still no HQ

Just to give balance to my earlier points: I do not have a problem with JO generally and I do think he is trying to get things changed: nutrition and obesity.

And I am very disappointed that there were signs that progress was being made, and then Theresa May came into power and the draft is nothing like what was hoped for.

I am disappointed by all of his.
Some of the debate points were valid and true. Why there isn't a sugar tax, or less sugar in drinks, tomato ketchup and baked beans etc, is a mystery to us all, right?

But unfortunately during this debate, a couple of really damaging things were also said.

TBF Justine herself has post d at least twice.

Atsea Justine has responded herself throughout the thread, the last post was at 17.33. I'm assuming that she's finished her working day now and is at home with her family.

But justine didn't respond to the points about the implications of her comments for children suffering from these conditions and who are the ones possibly lying awake at nights worrying about her comments man. She responded to the points that she cared about, it seems.

steppin I don't think anyone has a problem with telling children that eating crap makes you fat and is unhealthy. It's the very specific and misleading talk about amputation that seemed wildly insensitive and inappropriate.

Thanks everyone - I really appreciate the support on this thread and the informed discussion about how blame and stigma function as part of public health messages.

It's all reminded me how last year I complained about a trailer for Jamie's Sugar Rush which showed piled up amputations juxtaposed with messages about how sugar is damaging our children. That trailer was withdrawn as the complaints were found to be valid. It's a shame the lesson hasn't been learnt from that.

I'm really pleased that Justine has come onto this thread. I'm not personally satisfied with her responses, but I'm pleased that she has agreed to apologise on Jamie Oliver's Facebook site and I hope that she has heard the messages, even if she hasn't directly accepted them, namely:

• children with diabetes are a vulnerable group facing discrimination, bullying and mental distress the latter due to fear of complications which are largely outside their control (although better funding for tools like pumps and CGMs would help reduce their risks)
• blame and stigma are highly debatable tools for effecting change and increase the mental distress for this vulnerable group and the health risks for other groups (e.g. adults with pre diabetes who may go into avoidance because of the stigma attached to diagnosis)

Therefore

• the focus on the potential complications of diabetes and linking it to childhood obesity is a discriminatory and ineffective strategy.

I do believe that Justine has influence, she is an opinion former. With that comes a responsibility. Everybody messes up sometimes and says stupid things, even intelligent educated women. What's important is that she listens and recognises that her stupid remark is suggestive of views which are dangerous and derogatory, both to people with diabetes of all kinds, and people struggling to manage their weight.

BTW if anyone is interested in issues around T1D in kids, I write a very personal blog

Excellent post T1mum3.

the public health strategy surrounding smoking, of which shock tactics have played a part has indeed seen some success. It is by no means perfect. There is work taking place at the tobacco research unit to investigate which behaviour change strategies are most effective in bringing the rate down further. I'm sure we would all like that to happen.

By the way road safety is absolutely to do with health. Public health is to do with preventing people dying or limiting damage from all possible preventable causes.

A lot of diseases / ill health are preventable, if not individually then on a population level.

is peer pressure good to use for public health reasons? And when does peer pressure turn into stigma?

Children who are overweight at a young age are not the ones that are choosing what they eat at home (or at school for that matter). Teaching school children the idea that if you are a lazy porker you will get fat will mean those children are then ridiculed and tormented over something that it not really under their control. You can teach a child that they need to eat X, Y, and Z to stay healthy, but let's face it - they're going to eat what their parents give them at home and what school gives them for school lunches.

How can fat shaming at that level be of any help whatsoever?

Only read the op...peripheral neuropathy and ultimately amputation is a possible complication of poorly managed diabetes as is sight loss. Yes kids should be told of this.

Where I grew up, with my disabled mum on benefits, hardly any transport and she couldn't drive, the only nearby shop was a garage, with very little fresh food and what there was was expensive. And nowadays, online shopping has minimum payments she can't afford. There are many families like mine and poor nutrition is not simply about education or "laziness".

the public health strategy surrounding smoking, of which shock tactics have played a part has indeed seen some success.

Not for a decade it hasn't. What do you think we should do about that? I realise it's mostly poor / mad people left smoking but you could at least pretend to care.

There is work taking place at the tobacco research unit to investigate which behaviour change strategies are most effective in bringing the rate down further. I'm sure we would all like that to happen.

What's the 'tobacco research unit'? I googled it and all the results were from a research cluster in Ontario. Are you involved with this group? You speak of '[investigating] which behaviour change strategies are most effective ...' Do you realise how sinister this sounds? It would be great if you dropped the shit and actually asked smokers what would help them to quit. Especially as your grant likely came from taxes paid by poor smokers.

By the way road safety is absolutely to do with health. Public health is to do with preventing people dying or limiting damage from all possible preventable causes.

Yeah but it's behaviourally very different from the sorts of problems people have looking after their own long term health. Nobody needs long-term psychological help because they just can't stop driving without a seatbelt. It's not a thing.

is peer pressure good to use for public health reasons?

Only when it works and doesn't harm people.

And when does peer pressure turn into stigma?

Usually when Public Health get involved IME.

How disappointing. You've made some excellent points OP, as a recently diagnosed type1 I can fully understand your frustration.
Everybody in the media loves spouting on about diabetes, not many of them actually know much about it.
Panorama recently had to apologise for giving incorrect information in their report.
I've seen dramas where someone has been given insulin to treat a hypo, that would probably kill you. I could go on...
Everyone loves to vilify type 2 diabetics, again, without knowing the facts, just presuming it's because they're fat and lazy.

Diabetes is a big enough daily battle as it is without disabilism & ignorance being constantly chucked at us.