WTF - is the Food Standards Agency promoting teenage pregnancy now?!

[CanSleepWeirdShifts]

From this link...

What foods should I give my children to make sure they eat a healthy diet?......

Folate ? helps the immune system and production of red blood cells. It's especially important for teenage girls because it can help to prevent neural tube defects (such as spina bifida) in pregnancy. Foods that are rich in folate include green vegetables, yeast extract and pulses.

Well I was going to comment that I didn't think teenage girls would be queuing up to get pregnant since they now knew how to prevent neural tube defects ...

...and then I read your post properly. That is a bit odd. Surely should read especially important for women of childbearing age etc etc.

I'd e-mail it to the Daily Mail .

I think it's an error and shona's right.

I don't think it's an error and I think it's quite correct to include it. All it is saying is that anyone of childbearing age needs folate. And that includes teenage girls.

Given that the article is about what parents should be feeding their children, this is an important area.

It's sad that we have to mention it, but unfortunately the reality is that many teenage girls still do get pregnant, and many go on to have their babies, so surely a healthy diet as a teenager would at least minimise the risks to those babies.

I don't think it's condoning anything at all - all the science and nutrition books I've ever read have stressed the importance of certain vitamins and minerals etc to ALL women of childbearing age. So if a woman (or in this case teenage girl) did have an unplanned pregnancy, at least she would be in the best possible health.

Yep, can just picture my mum telling me when I was 15 to eat up my greens in case I got pg...

Sadly the Dail Mail has hijacked "teenage pregnancy" to be some sort of sexual perversion.
Many mothers are happily married tennagers.

Fortuantely we are now in a largely post Christian society where unmarried mothers aren't persecuted.

I have absolutely no problem with teenage mothers, unmarried mothers or any combination thereof. But this leaflet is about parents feeding children. Deeply naive to think it is remotely helpful.

I still thnk it's an error - should read 'women of childbearing age' as shona suggested, not 'teenage girls' alone.

How can it be an error? The article is about parents feeding their CHILDREN, so in that context it is right to point to teenage girls because they are the only group of children at risk of pregnancy, planned or otherwise.

I suppose they could have phrased it 'since all women of child-bearing age need x, y and z', then make sure your teenage daughters get plenty in their diet.'

Can't believe the fuss over this, I would have thought it was all common sense.

Actually what bothers me is how pointless it is. Like any mother is going to read this and up her 14 yr old's folate in case she gets up the duff. Folate for general health, yes.

If you want advice about feeding an adult you don't go to a leaflet on feeding your child.

That's a valid concern, but I note that some mothers seem quite aware that their teernage daughters are entirely likely to get pregnant.

Also of course, given the diet of teenagers generally in this country, the sort of foods that contain this reduce the ratio of crud in their diet which is good regardless of when they breed.

eh?

don't get the problem really.

how on earth does it promote teenage pregnancy?

(right now, up and down the country, I'm sure there are teenage girls saying oooh I'll have unprotected sex cos the FSA says its cool)

think its a good argument for adding folate to flour etc though

Agree, DC, but I don't see those mothers rushing out to get the Preganacare, do you?

Fillyjonk, I don't thonk it promotes teenage pg either. I just think it is information in entirely the wrong place. A total waste of time. There should be a whole leaflet on the subject of helping teenagers to eat healthily, not tacking it onto one about children.

Well I certainly didn't expect this thread to kick off when I started it!

I was just surprised to read the comment where I did - seemed totally out of place and inappropriate - as others have said, at the least it ought to have said 'women of childbearing age'.

nearlythreeI agree that these potential mothers aren't likely to get the right diet. To me that is the reason the NHS should try and reach them. If people took appropriate care of themselves the NHS would have a lot less work.
I don't know how effective any of these campaigns are though.

As for pandering to Daily Mail readers by euphemisms about "childbearing age", that's rubbish, cruel rubbish at that. It's very hard to get the message across at the best of times, without political correctness.
Remember how Christians in the last Tory government succeeded in getting vague grey blobs instead of warnings about AIDS ?

Dc, it's not just Christians who have it in for teenage mothers. A popular thing I hear/read a lot is that parents should only have babies if they can afford to keep them. One woman wrote to our local paper and suggest enforced adoption/abortion and the stopping of free state education for children whose parents are on benefits. I got so mad I couldn't sleep but the local paper did publish my reply!

And it's worth remembering that in a lot of places Christians pick up the pieces for poor mothers who are dumped on by the Gov. It's a very particular kind of Christian that you refer to.

IIRC the one of the Glasgow Catholic diocese is very committed to fundraising specifically to provide all that a new mum needs so that the women they encourage to keep their babies (having been persuaded against termination) are not left unsupported and uncared for - I was very impressed by their concern for proper follow-through of their pro-life stance.

WRT the leaflet, perhaps they are concerned with developing proper eating habits in teenage girls given that one day they may go on to have children and are already accustomed to having appropriate amounts of folate, iron etc in their diet.

Nearly3, I do accept that others want to persecute unmarried mothers, and make medical facilities available only to "good" people. But it's very rare for a non-religious outfit to have the organisational clout to achieve this.
Thus the loonies who want sterilisation for poor people are entirely unlikely to succeed in anything. Whereas Christian groups have managed to screw up medical research, and caused mothers to die because the treatments to save them were "unethical".
That's not all of them of course, some Christian groups do heroic work, but once they get political power, you don't want to be in their way.

Are you saying that religious states are more compassionate ?
Really ?
Have you any example in history or the present day where a religious state has behaved compassionately for any sustained period ?