Nanny is getting her knickers into a twist again over food. Specifically adverts for food that Nanny believes to be evil, eg chocolate bars, crisps and fizzy drinks.
Nanny's chums in the Food Standards Agency (FSA) think that these "evil" foods should be treated like sex, ie we shouldn't have any and that they should be banned from television before 9pm.
The FSA is pressing for a pre-watershed ban on all junk food commercials to improve children's health.
Nanny thinks that junk food adverts are a major contributor to the alleged epidemic of childhood obesity.
Er is it not up to parents to regulate their childrens' diets, and to make sure they get enough exercise?
I wonder how Nanny will define junk food?
Too much fat and salt maybe?
Does that mean adverts for cheese, butter, milk and salt will be banned?
To repeat, it is up to parents to control their childrens' diets not the state!
surely it would be simpler to just ban children from watching TV. They wouldn't see any ads, and they would be out and about and burning calories ;)
ReplyDeleteSimpler perhaps, but if they don't learn to rely on the TV, how will they receive Nanny's messages in future?
ReplyDeleteThere's no way Nanny will surrender the TV.
Nanny should meet my kids. Them: "Mum, I'm hungry." Me: "Have a biscuit." Them: "Can I have some fruit instead?" I must have the only children (well, teen and proto-teen) in the UK that prefer fruits and vegetables to crisps and chocolate. (I know I've got the only 11-12 year old male in the area that can cook a decent meal without relying on packaged foods or ready meals).
ReplyDeleteI'll be interested to see the first legal action brought by a multinational food company when it feels it's been libelled by having its products described as 'junk'.
ReplyDeletejohn rimmer said...
ReplyDeleteI'll be interested to see the first legal action brought by a multinational food company when it feels it's been libelled by having its products described as 'junk'.
It won't happen. The obvious targets are rolling over, even in the US. Must be seen to be PC and, if possible, green. (But not greens.)
Th executives dare not risk the eco-anarchists targetting them and setting off a fear reaction in the stock exchanges for one thing - it would affect the value of their stock holdings, bonuses and tenure.
Plus the really big conglomerates see a greater opportubnity in making profits from 'natural' and 'organic' types products because they believe they can persuade more and more people to hand over ever greater amounts of their hard earned or handouts on higher margin products promoted as healthy. I see this at home. Trouble is I have to eat prodigious amounts of salt and fat to achieve what I believe to be a healthy total family intake ...
;-)
And of course in the UK toeing the line and offering a few beans here and there for party funds can be a decent way for a captain of industry to gain personal reward even if his boat founders.
I suspect most of them would simply say that they are not around to moralise about food and if they can find a way to continue to market something, whatever it is, that people will buy and deliver them a profit, who cares what it contains? If it costs more an people will still buy it the margins are likely to be higher so they win again.
I expect to hear an announcement from the government, backed by 'big food' that low income families will be forced to claim a 'good food' payout in order to improve the nation's health. Probably paid for by a tax on crisps and pizzas.