• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Why Scots Children Must Learn the Taste for Less

Posted on: Friday, 10 December 2004, 03:00 CST

EVEN in a world of increasingly hysterical government health warnings, it's no exaggeration to say that Scotland has its ample posterior sitting on a child obesity timebomb.

The latest statistics make frightening reading for any parent: one in three youngsters is overweight, while a worrying one in five 12-year-olds is now classified as clinically obese.

For a small country which already suffers big health problems inextricably linked to poverty and poor diet, issues don't come any weightier than this.

The Scottish Executive is keen to show its concern and earlier this week Deputy Health Minister Rhona Brankin said "we want to do something about it now".

Such vague rhetoric is revealing, as it's rather unclear as to what that "something" should be. But it's obvious that if children's health continues to deteriorate so rapidly, Scotland's appalling public health record is not going to improve.

The Opposition say they aren't short on ideas. The SNP has called for legislation to ban the advertising of junk food in print, cinema and on billboards, as well as a "traffic light" labelling system for food and a ban on the sale of junk food in schools.

There are signs that central government is preparing to venture down this radical road, as Westminster is already considering a ban on TV adverts for junk food during the day.

The worry is that such measures would stem from a political need to be seen to be doing "something" rather than evidence that it will work.

First of all, if we pass laws to regulate junk food, then how exactly do you define junk food? The high-fat, high-salt products of certain famous burger chains might spring to mind, along with sugar- laden cereals and fizzy drinks, crisps and chocolate bars. But what about fatty foods which are nutritious, like calcium-rich cheese? Should these be banned or carry a health warning?

Research shows people ate a diet higher in calories and fat half a century ago, but childhood obesity was rare.

According to the British Nutrition Foundation, diets of four- year-olds in the 1990s contained less iron, less energy and more sugar than the 1950s. It is a sad irony that although the UK is the fourth richest country in the world, it has the second highest child poverty rate in the EU.

But obesity is also a disease of affluent families: latest figures show that 24.4 per cent of under-fives in predominantly middle-class Edinburgh West are overweight, compared to one in five in Midlothian.

ANY efforts to legislate on fatty foods would be further complicated by the experience of our Continental neighbours. There is a growing awareness that countries whose diets are relatively high in fat, like France, don't have anything like the same weight problems experienced in Britain.

But there is no miraculous reason why the French or Italians or Spanish are thinner and healthier than us. Anyone who has asked their doctor for advice on losing weight and getting fitter will have been told the same thing: to lose weight you must consume fewer calories than you use.

Calls for government intervention in the advertising and marketing of food also fail to take proper account of the link between children's obesity and lack of exercise. This doesn't just mean PE in schools, but the kind of activity which once gave most children a base level of fitness.

Children who walked to and from school and spent hours out playing every day didn't need to worry about eating stodgy food.

The reality is that human evolution has got a long way to go to catch up with huge changes in our lifestyles. This week's warning from the charity Kidscape that anxious parents are reluctant to let their children out, and the concerns that a shipment of upgraded PS2s won't arrive in time for Christmas highlight the trend for children to spend more time indoors in front of a computer or games console.

As ill health linked to obesity has increased, the Government has invested millions in healthy eating initiatives and marketing campaigns. But increased education is just part of the solution. Children need to be taught how to prepare their own food; parents need to have access to affordable fresh produce. The quality of school meals should be addressed, even if the local chippy will still offer cut-price deals. Exercise should be promoted in schools as something to do for its own sake, and not necessarily to compete.

Ultimately, however, this isn't a problem which the Government can solve with advertising bans or any other kind of state intervention. Individuals have to be able to make up their own minds about the lifestyle they want to live - they need to be given the facts about food, and then decide.

The marketing message should be more realistic. Being healthy doesn't mean giving up all unhealthy foods, but striking a balance. Eating chips or chocolate as your staple diet is obviously not a good idea, but eating them once or twice a week is unlikely to do much damage if the rest of your diet is basically good.

SO outlawing Mars Bars or McDonald's cheeseburgers won't make kids thinner, but encouraging them to eat such foods in moderation and to be more active might just work. The trouble with selling moderation is that it sounds so dull and boring, and in a society where most people can afford to eat and drink whatever they want whenever they want, maybe it is.

Some amount of self-discipline is needed to stop us over- indulging - and that's why no amount of legislation will ever make people want to have healthier lifestyles. They have to choose to do it for themselves.

Source: Evening News; Edinburgh (UK)

More News in this Category