I am really beginning to think that Nanny must have had some very unpleasant experience with food, when she was a child; that at least would be one explanation for her seemingly never ending obsession with telling us what we should eat.
Nanny's dear old chum Ruth "Opus Dei" Kelly decided to have another go at our diets last week, by banning most of the products on sale in the school tuck shop (for my non Brit readers, a tuck shop is a sweet shop based within school grounds).
Opus Kelly said that crisps (did you know that crisps contain a very high amount of vitamin C), chocolate and fizzy drinks would be banned from sale in schools from September 2006.
If they are so dangerous, why is she not banning them now?
Does that not leave a whole year for the greedy and ignorant to sue Nanny for putting their little brats at risk, by exposing them to these "dangerous" products?
Anyhoo, in 2006 schools will be required by law to empty vending machines of the products, and remove them from tuck shops.
Opus's spokesman said that new legislation would cover "any way that food is served in schools, in tuck shops and vending machines".
That surely means that a child's packed lunch box is also subject to this law?
Taken to its logical conclusion it means that, in order to comply with the law, schools will have to search lunch boxes and confiscate "non conforming" sandwiches and biscuits etc.
It's not just crisps and fizz that are banned; burgers, sausages and other foods high in fat, salt and sugar content will also be outlawed as part of new nutritional standards for school canteens.
Ms Kelly told delegates at the Labour Party conference in Brighton last week:
"I am absolutely clear: the scandal of junk food served every day in school canteens must end.
And because children need healthy options throughout the day, from next September no school will be able to have vending machines selling crisps, chocolates and sugary fizzy drinks."
If these products are so bad, why has Nanny taken since 1997 (when she first grasped power) to act?
Aside from the obvious issues about freedom of choice and packed lunches, we do live in a free market economy etc, there is another small point. Vending machines are controlled by outside contractors, under the Government's Private Finance Initiative.
The contracts will have to be changed; that will cost a lot of money, if the companies are willing to change them.
I would like to make simple personal observation here.
When I was a child; I ate chips, burgers and sausages at school with no ill effects. I am now 43, and am not obese (in fact ladies, I am quite fit and trim;)).
The reason being, that whilst at school I may have indulged, at home my parents made sure that I ate properly; ie vegetables, fresh meat etc.
The health issue for some children is the fact that they eat shit all day; the fault lies not with Nanny, but with their lazy ignorant parents.
Now, we as a society are going to have to make a choice; do we let people live their lives as they wish (even if soem of us disapprove of their ignorance and stupidity), or do we dictate what they eat at home as well.
If Nanny is serious about her desire to improve the eating habits of the children, then this is the nettle that she will have to grasp.
To my view, Nanny is not serious at all; these headline catching "bans" are merely gimmicks pushed onto Nanny by other headline grabbers, such as Jamie "I work for Sainsburys" Oliver.
That is the real trouble with Nanny, she is not sincere; and that is why no one listens to her.