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.
When I was at grammar school our tuck shop sold jam doughnuts, penny Arrow bars, Wagonwheels and all sorts of other "unhealthy" contraband. That was between 1961 and 1967. I'm still here, although I did have a heart attack four years ago that was put down to breathing car exhaust whilst cycling. Ban sweets and stickies? No. Ban cars? YES! That would make life cleaner, healthier and a lot safer!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with nanny here. Kids are subjected to peer pressure and are bombarded with advertising for cheap nasty food. When they get home their parents who probably are both working are going to feed them microwaved rubbish. So they are not going to take the healthly option as it is as alien to them as horsemeat.
ReplyDeleteHave you forgotten the rubbish that was being served up. Mechanically Separated deep fried muck. Yuk.
If we introduce them to a healthy, tasty (cooked properly it does taste better) varied diet. It takes more effort to produce and costs more (but really is a very small part of the school budget) maybe we won't have the predicted situation where children start dieing before their parents. After all who is going to look after you when you get to a dribbling bed wetting age.
They can (and will) still choose what to eat outside of school hours. Any packed lunch they bring in is likely to have something healthy in it like sandwiches, and trying to enforce what goes in that simply won't work.
I think you need to find something worthwhile to criticise. This is a much needed reform.
I am reliably informed (by a school cook) that plans are already being drawn up for teachers to inspect (and presumably confiscate if needful) food brought into school.
ReplyDeleteNote how neatly I avoided the 'teacher inspecting lunch box' trap!
I think the referendce to lazy parents is a bit harsh. The supermarkets have a lot to answer for in their promoting ready meals like they're some kind of super alternative. The only thing they save is time. They cost more than preparing from fresh ingredients and there has to be questions over their nutritional value. Thanks goodness this trend hasn't taken off in France and Spain wherre the nearest thing you'll see to a ready meal is a pre-prepared pizza and a small shelf with Pot Noodle.
ReplyDeleteI went to a boarding school back in the 60's. Dad in the ofrces and moving avery 2 years so it semed like a good idea at the time.
ReplyDeleteMost of the food was inedible - unless it was junk type stuff. That said the cooks fried bread was VERY popular and of course cheap for them to produce so planty of it around.
We lived off the stocks in the tuck shop and what we were allowed to bring in for our personal supplies - probably classified as junk today. However we did have playing fields and no telly (or very little and then only for the older pupils. Sports at least twice a week unless you were physically unable, but realistically a lot of the free time was also physically active through choice.
I don;t see a problem. I think a lot of this is an 'expression of power' based promotion based on the lack of real policy or indeed the need to do anything at all, except stop the sale of playing fields and buildiong houses on recreational land.
If they wish to pursue this sort of policy I think they should ban bicycles. That way Pete Roberts might have avoided his heart attack though I would be interested in the research that his doctors (presumably) did to lead them the the give the reason he offered.
And I would not have had a minor and low speed tumble off mine at the beginning of the year resulting in a chipped bone and dislocated shoulder which is still not fully healed. The only time in my life that I have been seriously injured by a vehicle it had to be a bicycle.
Back to the kids - what about those that don't eat at all? Will they be force fed. What will be the health angle of so many more kids either drinking nothing or wrapping their mouths, one after the other, around drinking fountains?
Will they be locked in at lunch time to stop them going to the local shops (if there are any) so they don;t get run over as they cross the road failing to spot an oncoming bicycle due to their low sugar levels?
Does ths apply to the Alphas and Betas as well as the deltas?
schools will have to search lunch boxes
ReplyDeleteHere in the US some schools are.
The problem isn't the sweets, but the fact that parents (here at least) let their kids veg out in front of the TV/games rather then play outside.