Question: what have Ian Wright, Chris Hoy, Kelly Holmes and David Beckham got in common? (apart from being famous sports people). Answer: they have all advertised sugary cereals & drinks. This week the Food Magazine is taking them to task for appearing to support some of the worst offenders in the child obesity stakes.
Gary Lineker and those crisps have been under fire before, but Gary has survived, although his adverts no longer appear before 9pm on television. I was a bit shocked to see the Food Magazine article. It was about as damning as you can be. I hope the high profile people who have been named will get the chance to put their side of the story.
We shouldn't forget that these are our golden boys and girls, role models for young people and ambassadors for Britain. So why are they promoting obesogenic products? Some of them could plead poverty, funding for certain sports isn't brilliant although this can't be Beckham's reason for being the face of Pepsi.
I would reserve judgement until I hear what they have to say, but a couple of points can't be denied. Firstly, the sort of stuff they are promoting, chocolate laden sugary cereals & high energy fizzy drinks are the real culprits in making children put on weight.
Does breakfast cereal need to be packed with sugar, chocolate flavours, additives and calories? I don't think so and neither do the experts who have time and again attacked these types of foodstuffs.
Secondly, the food manufactures know children will buy these foods if they are endorsed by their fave sports star/comedian/actor or children's TV character. Watch your child next time you go round the supermarket together.
Finally, it may be fine for Becks to down litres of Pepsi & for Chris Hoy & Kelly Holmes to eat bowl upon bowl of sugary chocolate cereal. They are top sports people with access to the latest knowledge about keeping fit and can burn calories like it's bonfire night. The average child can't and shouldn't be encouraged to eat these things.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
The Fat Controller-Cure for Obesity?
Miracle cure stories are always interesting and this week brought one from scientists in California who have made a potential breakthrough.
The word "potential" is important in this story and in most of these 'miracle cure' stories.
I understand why newspapers have to say things in this way. "There might possibly be a cure for overweight people" is not much of a headline. But there are two dangers in this sort of reporting. The first is that the cure is a long way off and at a very early stage.
In this case, the scientists are encouraged by the effects some obscurely named enzyme. Only encouraged, nothing more nothing less.
It will take years for these findings to translate into treatment - so much depends on funding, development and the williness and ability of the reserarchers to pursue a solution.
The other danger is complaceny, we have already heard that surgery is becoming the first port of call in tackling obesity and it's dangerous to rely on external solutions to the problem of being overweight.
It's also pointless, the solution to obesity is within everyone's reach if they can get the right sort of help and commitment.
The word "potential" is important in this story and in most of these 'miracle cure' stories.
I understand why newspapers have to say things in this way. "There might possibly be a cure for overweight people" is not much of a headline. But there are two dangers in this sort of reporting. The first is that the cure is a long way off and at a very early stage.
In this case, the scientists are encouraged by the effects some obscurely named enzyme. Only encouraged, nothing more nothing less.
It will take years for these findings to translate into treatment - so much depends on funding, development and the williness and ability of the reserarchers to pursue a solution.
The other danger is complaceny, we have already heard that surgery is becoming the first port of call in tackling obesity and it's dangerous to rely on external solutions to the problem of being overweight.
It's also pointless, the solution to obesity is within everyone's reach if they can get the right sort of help and commitment.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Scottish GP Faces Chocolate Meltdown
Yesterday David Walker was a Lanarkshire GP concerned about the obesity problem-today he is the spoilsport who wants a tax on chocolate. Before you can say "nanny state", Dr Walker, who is actually an expert in nutrition, is being taken to task over his views.
For sure, the food and drink industry is not very thrilled about this proposal. A tax on chocolate would leave the way open to taxing drinks, crisps and other types of sweets. It should also be pointed out that we already pay VAT on sweets and chocolate.
But as GP with many years of experience dealing with weight issues, Dr Walker is trying to redress the balance and I only hope he can ride out the media storm and come out unscathed.
If you turn this story inside out and get over the hysteria, what he is saying makes a lot of sense. Bars, bags & boxes of chocolate are now bigger than ever and once opened, have to be finished.
There is a common sense win, win solution to this In an earlier post about supersize chocolate bars, we saw Health Minister Alan Johnson pleading with sweet & chocolate makers to make smaller size packs.
A very good point considering a "21st Century" breakfast of a can of fizzy drink and a chocolate bar can easily run to over 1000 calories.
I suspect that chocolate bars will get smaller but I also think you'll get less for your money. Would it hurt the confectionary firms to hand back some of their profits to the government? Probably not and with sales of chocolate supposedly on the rise, due to the recession, they are well placed to be generous.
For sure, the food and drink industry is not very thrilled about this proposal. A tax on chocolate would leave the way open to taxing drinks, crisps and other types of sweets. It should also be pointed out that we already pay VAT on sweets and chocolate.
But as GP with many years of experience dealing with weight issues, Dr Walker is trying to redress the balance and I only hope he can ride out the media storm and come out unscathed.
If you turn this story inside out and get over the hysteria, what he is saying makes a lot of sense. Bars, bags & boxes of chocolate are now bigger than ever and once opened, have to be finished.
There is a common sense win, win solution to this In an earlier post about supersize chocolate bars, we saw Health Minister Alan Johnson pleading with sweet & chocolate makers to make smaller size packs.
A very good point considering a "21st Century" breakfast of a can of fizzy drink and a chocolate bar can easily run to over 1000 calories.
I suspect that chocolate bars will get smaller but I also think you'll get less for your money. Would it hurt the confectionary firms to hand back some of their profits to the government? Probably not and with sales of chocolate supposedly on the rise, due to the recession, they are well placed to be generous.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Are Food Dudes the Answer?
Raz, Tom, Charlie, Rocco, General Junk, Miss Demeanour and Master Diaster don't sound like the answer to the nation's obesity crisis. But they might be if scientists at the University of Bangor in Wales are right.
These seven cartoon characters are the Food Dudes and they are responsible for changing children's attitudes towards fresh fruit and vegetables. According to parents and teachers who have come into contact with the Food Dudes, veg dodging kids are transformed.
So successful is Food Dudes, that the programme has won a WHO award for success in the fight against obesity. Experts have been queuing up to say how effective it is.
The Republic of Ireland likes the programme so much that it has been adopted in all of its primary schools.
Anyone whose children goes to school with the Food Dudes is a lucky parent. For those who have not made friends with the magnificent seven yet, ask your school when the Food Dudes are joining the class.
These seven cartoon characters are the Food Dudes and they are responsible for changing children's attitudes towards fresh fruit and vegetables. According to parents and teachers who have come into contact with the Food Dudes, veg dodging kids are transformed.
So successful is Food Dudes, that the programme has won a WHO award for success in the fight against obesity. Experts have been queuing up to say how effective it is.
The Republic of Ireland likes the programme so much that it has been adopted in all of its primary schools.
Anyone whose children goes to school with the Food Dudes is a lucky parent. For those who have not made friends with the magnificent seven yet, ask your school when the Food Dudes are joining the class.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Going Nuts about Nuts
Nuts get a bad press, banned from school lunch boxes, treated with suspicion, shunned and avoided by parents. By far the worst nut on the tree is the humble peanut which isn't even a nut - apparenly it's a legume. Not that this has done much to dent its bad reputation.
Around 1 in 50 people in Britain are supposed to suffer from nut allergy. Schools are declared 'nut free zones' and the tasty, filling peanut butter sandwich is off the menu.
I've always been curious about the origin of nut allergies and saw a couple of studies recently which suggest that total avoidance is not the right answer.
Scientists at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge have found a way to de-sensitise children who have been classified servere nut allergy suffers. They have proved that controlled exposure to nuts develops tolerance - along the lines of vaccination building up a resistance to a disease. Just being able to stand minimum exposure to nuts could save the life of severe allergy sufferers.
Nuts are one of nature's wonderfoods, packed full of nutrients which are difficult to obtain from other sources. Banning and demonising them is not the answer to nut allergy. It denys non-sensitive children the right to healthy snacks and doesn't guarantee allergy suffers will never come into contact with some form of nut or nut product.
The speed with which schools in Britain have acted unilaterally to ban nuts from lunch boxes & premises is phenomenal-what's not very impressive is how slow they have been to react to that other deadly threat-junk food which is as deadly as any nut.
Around 1 in 50 people in Britain are supposed to suffer from nut allergy. Schools are declared 'nut free zones' and the tasty, filling peanut butter sandwich is off the menu.
I've always been curious about the origin of nut allergies and saw a couple of studies recently which suggest that total avoidance is not the right answer.
Scientists at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge have found a way to de-sensitise children who have been classified servere nut allergy suffers. They have proved that controlled exposure to nuts develops tolerance - along the lines of vaccination building up a resistance to a disease. Just being able to stand minimum exposure to nuts could save the life of severe allergy sufferers.
Nuts are one of nature's wonderfoods, packed full of nutrients which are difficult to obtain from other sources. Banning and demonising them is not the answer to nut allergy. It denys non-sensitive children the right to healthy snacks and doesn't guarantee allergy suffers will never come into contact with some form of nut or nut product.
The speed with which schools in Britain have acted unilaterally to ban nuts from lunch boxes & premises is phenomenal-what's not very impressive is how slow they have been to react to that other deadly threat-junk food which is as deadly as any nut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
