To think you can't ban food on trains?

[poshme]

In today's times (sorry rubbish at links) there's an article saying the outgoing chief medical officer wants to ban food on trains unless for medical reasons.
AIBU to think this is completely stupid & unworkable?
Apparently it's because we're snacking too much & too many children are obese.

I regularly catch trains with my kids- usually a 3-4 hr journey. Invariably it's a meal time, and part of passing the time is eating a packed meal. Yes- it's not the healthiest meal in the world & includes crisps & chocolate, but as part of a normal diet it's fine.

My kids are not overweight. In fact they're generally underweight.

If this is implemented they're never be able to enforce it surely?

At best it would be a drop in the ocean measure.

The food industry should have been more closely controlled years ago.

What will do the most now to help with obesity is tackling the causes of stress, and the biggest way the government could help with that is giving employees more rights, continuing to the minimum wage and controlling working hours, giving more people access to secure, decent housing at reasonable rents so people aren't working flat out all hours in unhealthy lifestyles which leads to: lack of sleep, stress, lack of exercise and reliance on takeaways and convenience foods.

Basically stop the race to the bottom with our lifestyles and move towards people being able to work fewer hours for more pay and full employment. Which can happen for everyone if the top 0.5%/1% are stopped from being so utterly greedy and selfish.

continuing to raise the minimum wage.

Well I could delay the journey I suppose. So- end school at 4. Go home, wait a bit. Eat dinner at 6, catch train at 630, arrive at 1030pm. With 3 very tired kids. Tell kids' dad (who were going to see) that we're almost 3 hours later than planned to prevent the kids eating on the train.

IME the trains we travel on aren't cramped & we don't seem to have issues with digestion.

Or I could drive. In my polluting diesel car.

If you read what she said instead of just the headline, she is talking about local public transport journeys, so I assume less than an hour. You maybe have not experienced local travel outside London.

I don't think you should ever need to eat outside a house or a restaurant, unless its a picnic or a really really long journey. It's perfectly possible for most healthy people to not eat for 4 hours. There's so much wrong with this. I'm travel sick on a bus on an empty stomach, I can't afford to eat in a restaurant on a daily basis, nor do I have the time to break my journey to do so, food does not magically appear the instant I walk through my door, I have to prepare it first.

So if you're making them do it just to 'pass the time', why not feed them before the journey and take some books/travel toys instead? I think you will find she takes books. travel toys as well.

I'd love it if eating on trains/buses was banned.
And in offices.
People eat all day every bloody day. It has got ridiculous. Stuffing their faces with crisps, biscuits, boxes of dry cereal - it's as if people have only two modes, sit on their phones or eat. Rant over.

Totally unworkable though!!

I do however completely agree with @shearwater

What will do the most now to help with obesity is tackling the causes of stress, and the biggest way the government could help with that is giving employees more rights, continuing to the minimum wage and controlling working hours, giving more people access to secure, decent housing at reasonable rents so people aren't working flat out all hours in unhealthy lifestyles which leads to: lack of sleep, stress, lack of exercise and reliance on takeaways and convenience foods.

Trains that are taking you from one end of the country to another? No, people may be travelling for a few hours around lunch/dinner, they need to eat.

Smelly food on buses (you're on for an hour max if you're going from one end to the other, and most people arent) or the tube (ditto) yes please god ban them. The smell of some of food when you're in an enclosed space is nauseating and most of the time people don't need to be eating on transport.

Are the government really suggesting you starve kids for that long?

It's not a government suggestion.

@phoenixrosehere I really don't care what field you family are in and it's weak argument to try to pull rank by using such an example. There is absolutely no need to eat every 4 hrs. It's a habit. If you did extend the time between your meals, you would slowly get used to it.
Suggest you read up on the 8hr diet (which is not about losing weight it's about health) where you go 16 hours as a fast and eat what you like within an 8-hr window. And maybe let your family who are 'medical' see it too.

You really are incredibly ill-informed. What about people who eat breakfast at 7 then lunch at 1pm? Or lunch at noon and dinner at 7 pm? Both perfectly normal. Eating regularly by the clock is actually unhealthy and the longer gaps allow for insulin to remain low. Constant food-dripping and snacking cause insulin spikes and eventually can cause diabetes even in thin people.

Do some reading for your own health.

Not quite the point if the thread, but I've noticed that some of the words associated with people eating on MN - slurping, chomping, stuffing their faces - is really ridiculous and really offensive when they are, even if implied, towards people who are overweight.

To reduce the issue of a persons weight to them stuffing their faces is reductive. There are many reasons why some people are fatter than others and it is a complex and sensitive situation in many cases.

@phoenixrosehere If you feel unwell after only 4hrs without food you might want to be checked to see if you have any health issues.

If anybody manages to get the huge fried breakfast on Calmac ferries banned, I'll chain myself to the appropriate railings. I have this two or three times a year on the way back from visiting family and it keeps me going the rest of the day as I travel back to London.

It's unworkable, but I do think it draws attention to how much eating on the go has become the norm. People really do seem to eat non stop these days. And portion sizes are so much bigger - I went into WH Smith's at my local station the other day to buy a packet of crisps and they were all 'grab bags', a bigger sized bag and on a deal that made it a big incentive to buy 2 rather than 1. Cinemas used to just sell a limited range of sweets and ice cream, now people go in with piles of nachos, coke and popcorn. To watch a 2 hour film.

We have an obesity crisis and many people have forgotten that it's normal to eat because you are hungry, not just because you fancy it.

It may be an unworkable solution, but it is good to raise awareness of the problem.

As usual the initial repsonse is to jump on the "outraged" bandwagon rather than think about the essence of the idea or read the detailed background to the headlines.
It used to be considered common and the height of bad manners to eat in the street or on public transport. There was also very little available to buy. People still did of course, especially on longer journeys, but not nearly so frequently or messily.
The obsession with constant snacking, fear of not eating for more than about an hour and the lack of consideration for others surrounding our food culture is costly in more ways than one. It really does need to be addressed.

The general idea may be worth looking at.

And also "evidence" to suggest blood sugar levels can be better managed by more frequent smaller meals to prevent "spikes"

Nope. Link to it if that's what you think. Not if we are talking diabetes and possibly cancer.

I think that lack of sleep is a huge factor in dietary choices and weight gain. And we sleep less now than ever. I wonder if people might be more receptive to changes about sleep than food and it might offer a beneficial cascade effect?

It used to be considered common and the height of bad manners to eat in the street or on public transport

Exactly. When I was a child it was frowned upon to eat outside in the street. I was brought up not to.
It was the height of bad manners to stuff your face with a pasty on the street. (and yes I will use 'stuff' regardless of the vocab police who have appeared here lately because no one should try to censor everyday words.)

If you went by train on a long journey you took your Thermos and a bag of sannies.

It's a bit like eating in the cinema. It's become mandatory to buy sweets or popcorn to munch.

The problem is it's hard to avoid outlets selling food.

In the past, when you could not buy sandwiches, wraps, takeaways etc, you either made your own and wrapped them in greaseproof paper and a paper bag, or you waited till you reached your destination. No one died from lack of food over 4hrs or less.

Shearwater - when i worked for minimum wage i didnt exist on convenience foods and takeaways. I probs eat more takeaways now im wealthier.

There’s no way this could be policed. NR wanted rid of the conductors to cut costs not long ago so who on Earth would be policing this? It’s just nonsense. Of course people should be able to eat on long train journeys, especially children (nobody wants to deal with hungry children on a long train journey!).

Not quite the point if the thread, but I've noticed that some of the words associated with people eating on MN - slurping, chomping, stuffing their faces - is really ridiculous and really offensive when they are, even if implied, towards people who are overweight.

I agree. Apparently no one but the smug person, eats food like a normal person. They gorge, chomp and slurp while said smug posters presumably sit nibbling daintily on a single spinach leaf.

When kids were little DH was in a "local hospital" - about 25 minutes by car - 2 hours + by public transport.

People hear 2 hours and think doable - expect your doing 2 hours spending less than an hour visiting where we couldn't eat then immediately having to travel back 2 hours because it was last train/bus.

When I did it by myself, I was drinking but not eating - to keyed up - when I did it with the kids picking eldest straight up from school not eating even though it was local services wasn't possible as time we were getting back it was straight to bed time as well.

When we travel on next holiday – we’ll spend about 2 plus hours on a local train service – as part of a longer journey but it’s almost certainly the bit where we’ll get to sit down despite seat reservations of the prior train – as it’s such an overcrowded route – last time was a fight to get near seats then fight to turf people out of them.

When I had pfb I was criticised by IL friends because MIL kept on it was only 45minutes to travel to see them. 45 minutes was the train journey bit it ignored the 40 minutes from our house to station by bus and the hour journey from train stop their end to their door. So it was over 2 half hours to get there and they were expecting me to travel back same day – so over 5 hours traveling with new born.

I think it why they’ve tacked on the idea of “local services” – it makes it sound doable.

Though I don't know any local buses where eating is allowed though if a parent gives a crying child a sanck to quiten them I've never heard anything but relief expressed by fellow passengers.

Another daft idea from someone who probably never uses public transport. I used to get my first train at 6.14 am followed by another two trains to get to work. I would eat a breakfast bar and or fruit on one of the trains as eating too early would make me heave. I would then get another three trains back home and would rarely eat till I got home unless I had not had a lunch break that day. Adults are perfectly capable of deciding what to eat and when!

I agree that lack of sleep is a factor along with a more mobile lifestyle.
I don't think that it is necessarily stress-related but if that is the case for individuals then it is part of a bigger picture.

What difference does it make whether it's a home made or ready made sandwich that's being consumed?

Usually far fewer calories in home made and no plastic packaging