Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

To be angry with Justine Roberts

10 replies

T1mum3 · 31/10/2016 10:40

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.

Go to post
MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 11:28

Hiya,
You're right I did mean Type 2 and I should have been more specific - apologies for that. It's actually a great shame these 2 very different conditions share the same name - a point Dr Dawn Harper, the GP on the panel, was lamenting before the event.

I do, however, believe children should be educated on nutrition and the potential damage to long term health of our current eating habits. Quite apart from consequences for individuals (there are more than 135 diabetes amputations in the UK every week now.) the current prediction, if we carry on as we are, is that the NHS could be bankrupted within 20 years. If we believe sex education is important in primary schools, why not health/nutrition education?

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 13:59

@user5318008

Instilling fear into children about their eating habits is stupid regardless of linking it to any particular condition because most children aren't doing their family's food shopping. Talking about a healthy, balanced diet? Great. Stressing them out that they're going to become seriously ill because of the choices their parents make? Stupid.

Evidence shows that childhood habits are key for later life eating and like it or not once your child is a certain age (in my case about 10) they increasingly will be making their own choices about what they eat. Sugar is highly addictive and let's face it, it's hard for adults let alone kids to resist it. Not teaching children about the importance of nutrition and the consequences of bad nutrition is, to my mind, pretty irresponsible.

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 14:01

@T1mum3

Justscreammumsnet - thank you for your apology, I think.... Will you be sharing this on the Jamie Oliver site also?

You make the comparison between sex education and health/nutrition education. In that scenario, what you suggested (whether you meant one kind or another) is a bit like telling children that if they are gay they are going to die of AIDS, rather than talking about sexuality in a positive, constructive way about relationships, safe sex and consent.

I think it's like telling teens that if they don't practice safe sex there's a range of nasty potential health consequences, yes.

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 14:01

@AntiHop

These illnesses really need renaming to avoid this confusion.

I agree!

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 14:07

@perfumedlife

"If we believe sex education is important in primary schools, why not health/nutrition education?" Excellent point Justine but of course getting the correct advice from a GP is always going to be tricky when they themselves are given very limited education in it at medical school. Add to that the chaotic approach to Carbohydrates by Diabetes UK and it's safe to say it's the blind leading the blind.

It's true that to become a doctor you train for 7 years but learning about nutrition is an optional not a compulsory part of the course. This is another thing Jamie Oliver is campaigning on - to incorporate nutrition into the training, which has got to be sensible.

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 14:09

@Headofthehive55

I see many parallels in the anti smoking campaigns. People said it couldn't be done, but the smoking rates have plummeted. There is much less heart disease than twenty years ago.

Me too.

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 14:15

@T1mum3

I don't think anyone is denying the need to provide children with education about nutrition. What I took offence to was that your remarks could increase bullying and fear amongst a vulnerable and protected group (children with Type 1 diabetes are classified as having a disability under the Equalities Act 2010). I'd like to hear how you feel this is consistent with mums net policy on ablism and your "this is my child" campaign.

I'd also like to see evidence that scare tactics amongst the younger age group are effective in change in eating habits amongst the older age group. Do you have that available?

As I've already said this relates to type 2 diabetes - and I apologise for not being clearer on the FB live chat. Education, of course, needs to appropriate and accurate but given we have obesity problem that many consider to be an epidemic and a projected rate of diabetes that is set to cripple the NHS in 20 years, I think we have an obligation to children to educate them about the risks and it's positively irresponsible not to. That doesn't mean there aren't loads of other things we should be doing to - involving labelling, supermarket regulation and using the tax system. It's clearly a massive and complex problem.

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 14:20

@GingerIvy

Educate them on the risks, perhaps, in an age appropriate manner, but the focus should be on the benefits.

To be honest we've had 5 a day as a very clear public message for ages - and a very small percentage of children have 5 day. I'm wondering whether a focus on the benefits is enough?

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 15:20

@OnceMoreIntoTheBleach

Agree with MrsC that a proper apology would have been much better than defensiveness.

Diabetes (1 or 2) is hard enough to deal with as it is without people fuelling the misconception that it's somehow our fault that we or our children develop one of these conditions!

Yes type 2 cropping up in children is a serious issue, but scaremongering and blame is not the answer Envy

Hang on, I don't see how this is defensive and not a proper apology?:

"You're right I did mean Type 2 and I should have been more specific - apologies for that."

But if it comes across that way, I'm sorry again!

MNHQ

JustscreamMumsnet · 31/10/2016 17:33

@BitOutOfPractice

It was an apology. But it was a pretty flippant one.

Will you be putting something on the JO site to make things clearer Justine.

I'm really happy to, yes. And the apology was genuine. Not meant to be at all flippant.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread