No anti junk food laws

[starkadder]

in the Guardian here www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/07/no-anti-junk-food-laws

The comments are all outraged but I have to say, although I thought I was a pretty typical Guardian reader, I would rather there weren't laws against junk food. I quite like eating a packet of crisps every now and again. Surely education here is the key anyway - allowing people to make their own, informed decisions?

Am I missing something?

I like having information on packs but I think there's plenty of it already. Some really don't care what they eat and it wouldn't matter if you put dire warnings in letters six inches high. Cigarette packets say 'this will kill you' very prominently but people still smoke. Others are health conscious and will make good decisions, regardless of what it says on the packet.

I'm never sure what a 'law against junk food' looks like because how do you define 'junk'? You can't legislate effectively for the amount of fat/salt/sugar a food can contain because some pretty good foods will suffer as a result. Low-fat olive oil doesn't exist, for example. Jam is essentially 'sugar with fruit'. Salami is always going to be very salty. And it is good to be able to eat the occasional packet of crisps or bar of chocolate - doesn't mean obesity and ill-health automatically await.

I would like to see the end of transfats, having said that. They constitute about 2% of the fats consumed and I'm sure they could be dispensed with.

Id prefer laws saying greengrocers must be available n every local shopping area.

Taxes not laws.

Taxes worked like a dream getting us all to quit smoking eh TheCoalitionNeedsYou?

Are rates of smoking going up or down?

The problem is that unhealthy food is CHEAPER than healthy food. So if you are on a low budget your choices are limited. Changing that would be a start. It's not like their is a premium much healthier cigarette to switch to is it?

Oh that old chestnut..... Healthy food isn't expensive. Anyone can eat well on very little money if they're prepared to roll up their sleeves, crack an egg or chop up a cabbage. The skill to make a good meal out of cheap ingredients is worth reviving.

Cigarettes cost a fortune. 'Not smoking' is therefore 'the healthier cigarette to switch to'. The drop in smoking has been steeper since it was made socially awkward and got banned in public places. Years of price-rises did next to nothing.

the skills are not widesp[read. How do you teach the skill to the 3rd generation of a family that have never cooked? My children's GRAMDMOTHERS rely on packet sauces, FFS.

We need to teach people to cook real food and trust their ability to cook before we start taxing what they do feel able to cope with.

People are leaving specialist SN colleges with far more life skills than NT people of the same age. they are taught to cook. they are taught to budget. Our children, unless they are lucky and have parents who DON'T think an Iceland pizza is an adequate meal, will not learn these skills.

Chil1234, calorie for calorie, healthy food is more expensive. 100 calories of fruit is more expensive than 100 calories of biscuits.

And 100 calories of olive oil is cheaper than 100 calories of biscuit. What's your point.

100 calories of vegetable is the equivalent food of 100 calories of 100 calories of olive oil. You cannot give 100 calories of olive oil as a snack in a child's lunch box. That is my point.

The healthy equivalent of most foods is more expensive.Cheap cuts of meat are fatty and difficult to cook sometimes. Cheaper cooking fats are not as good for you as olive oil. Biscuits, crisps and cakes are cheaper than nuts, fruit and seeds. White sliced value loaf is cheaper than a seeded loaf, it is also cheaper than making our OWN seeded loaf.

To get a 400 calorie HEALTHY lunch box, you need to spend a fair amount more than to get a 400 calorie UNHEALTHY lunch box.

The cost of the raw ingredients is not the only cost either. There is the cost of obtaining them, preparing them and learning how to prepare them.

I'm glad there will be no laws. Educate people by all means, but it's not up to a government to say what you can eat.

Not that I can ever eat junk food anyway. If I ate 100 calories of biscuits somehow I'd put on 20lb.

Can't they teach proper cooking in schools? I don't mean cakes. I mean how to make a meal from scratch and how to work out what it will cost so your money lasts until the end of the month. Those are useful skills.

onagar - they can but they haven't and they don't.

I would have to say yes you are missing somethng here - sorry

it isn't the odd packet of crisps that is the problem, it isn't even the packet of crisps every day for every year

it is the hidden substances in food that people don't realise is there and this is what gets them addicted to food that will then eventually make them fat - try watching cook yourself thin and the people don't understand that eating a jar of pasta sauce has hidden ingrediants that will make them fatter than eating pasta and cream and vegtables or bacon - that is the problem as a jar of pasta sauce isn't thought of as junk food - goodness it has llyod grosseman on the front how could it be junk? It is the labeling and the way a supermarket is set out that tricks people and it becomes really hard to stop the supermarket winning - espically when you have child with you that is sucked into the marketing.

if you want to stop buying junk food you have to know which food that is to start with and there are a lot of people that don't know which food are junk food and genuinly think they are healthy - yogurt - take a look down the yogurt isle and aks is this healthy or junk?

Jars of pasta sauce & yoghurts etc., are clearly labelled up with ingredients and nutrition panels. Most manufacturers put GDA or traffic-light info on the front of pack as well. You can't blame manufacturers for being good at marketing or consumers for not reading the information. There is an argument for teaching children how to read food labels....

Michael Pollan in his terrific book 'In Defence of Food' suggests a few rules of thumb for spotting whether something is 'food' or a 'food like substance'. 1. If it has more than six ingredients it's unlikely to be 'food'. 2. Avoid any food making a health claim (genuinely healthy food never does). 3. Don't buy anything with ingredients you don't recognise and/or can't pronounce

try putting a tub of margarine in the garage without the lid on the tub and come back a week later and see if any insect or other animal has touched it

here is the answer - but do it yourself and see what happens

I tryed to see what the differnce was between bran flakes this morning - one packet of sainsbury bran flakes and one kellogs - they were both giving the nutriional values for 30grams of flakes - great except when you read the tiny print sainsburys also included milk - so I would have had to then go and get the milk and do more maths to subtract the milk part to then compare - yes the facts may well seem to be on the label - but it isn't always how it seems.

I do buy fish, chicken and fruit and vegtables, then add a few other things I may need honey, eggs, flour for bread. I do read labels but I also think about what foods I put in our bodeis becaus eit is really important to me to get the best results for both of us

Chil1234 - the problem of putting the responsibility in the individual is that the consequences fall on society at large.

there is a thread on here about this

people really don't understand what is wrong with cordial drinks or fizzy diet drinks

The declaration of a refusal to go through with anti junk food laws is worrying because it is evidence of a growing trend if denegrating efforts to raise food standards for children in schools.

Remember Health Secretary Lansley's anti Jamie Oliver comments earlier this month - despite statistical and anecdotal evidence that his campaign is making a real difference.

Now this, plus an announcement to get rid of the traffic light system (because people ignore it - I for one find it really useful). And the news that the Food Industry is going to fund the campaigns for healthy eating.

I wonder whether we would ever have got a smoking ban under this present government - given the financial clout of the tobacco industry?

I don't understand your point. The Labour government DID introduce the smoking ban - it is hugely successful, despite the neigh sayers.

My point is that, under this coalition government, the interests of big business are once again being put before the health of the country. In addition, cheap political points are being scored by proclaiming 'we are anti nanny state', while in fact all in means 'we are pro short termist political gain'.

The stop and search powers have been altered because our primary legislation has been found to be in contravention with the Human Rights Act. Don't kid yourself the Lib Dem had any say in this.