Sweets at checkout

Qualitymark · 13-02-2014 12:10pm #1

I see TheJournal is running a poll on whether supermarkets should ban sweets at checkouts, as Lidl do in the UK. At the moment it's running at around 70% saying no, sweets should remain at checkouts.
Does this make a difference - to adults, to children setting up a habit of eating, to families? What do you think?

homemadecider · 13-02-2014 12:47pm

I heard this mentioned on Operation Transformation last night, they were petitioning the government to do something about it. Totally ridiculous IMO. Where a private shop places their products has nothing at all to do with the government.

Again it comes back to personal responsibility. Don't go to the supermarket hungry, stick to what's on your shopping list and you won't buy a load of impulse junk items.

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 12:54pm

homemadecider wrote: »

I heard this mentioned on Operation Transformation last night, they were petitioning the government to do something about it. Totally ridiculous IMO. Where a private shop places their products has nothing at all to do with the government.

Again it comes back to personal responsibility. Don't go to the supermarket hungry, stick to what's on your shopping list and you won't buy a load of impulse junk items.

I think it has more to do with parents trying to control and watch their children at the checkout. It must be a nightmare when your trying to deal with shopping and the child is asking for sweets, possibly throwing a tantrum if they are refused. Be no harm if they got rid of them, they have sweets at the very front of most shops on the shelves. There's no need to have them on the checkout as well.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 12:56pm

It kind of goes against the ads they have against allowing the kids to eat junk that they have during Operation Transformation.

Why don't they just let parents parent and say 'no' to sweets at the checkout rather than legislate for it?

homemadecider · 13-02-2014 12:59pm

Precious flower wrote: »

I think it has more to do with parents trying to control and watch their children at the checkout. It must be a nightmare when your trying to deal with shopping and the child is asking for sweets, possibly throwing a tantrum if they are refused. Be no harm if they got rid of them, they have sweets at the very front of most shops on the shelves. There's no need to have them on the checkout as well.

Parents can simply say 'no'. If the child has a tantrum, remove them from the shop. It's not that hard.

Stench Blossoms · 13-02-2014 1:07pm

homemadecider wrote: »

Parents can simply say 'no'. If the child has a tantrum, remove them from the shop. It's not that hard.

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

Orla K · 13-02-2014 1:27pm

One of the supermarkets near me have one or two of the checkouts with things like batteries sometimes i go to that one sometimes i don't. I don't remember any fuss that anyone has had at the sweets checkout with parents saying no just a few disappointed looking kids. The biggest problem i'd have is with the processing of food.

Another thing is its not so much what you put in the trolley at the end of a shop its the rest of the stuff that you put in that matters more.

PlanIT Computing · 13-02-2014 2:15pm

Dealing with tantrums is a way of life. They come and go - can't stay wrapped up in cotton wool with your kids.

Most annoying part is when strangers stop, drop everything, turn and leer. Like it's some type of circus act.

siochain · 13-02-2014 2:16pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

Do you have many kids?

Qualitymark · 13-02-2014 2:22pm

One of the big reasons I went to Superquinn was that there were no sweets at the checkout. Calm and kindness reigned.

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 3:35pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

I don't agree with that and I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Let us be honest here, a child (or children) can be in a bad mood and have a tantrum over almost anything even if the child is 90% of the time fine, and it may not be so easy to pacify them once they start. It's not so easy to say 'no' while a child is screaming and refusing to listen to you.

Not every child will react calmly when you refuse them chocolate/sweets if they are in a particularly great mood that day, especially if it is a young child. I've no doubt that shopping with young children in tow is hard enough as is. I'm just saying there is really no need for sweets to be by the checkouts, it just creates hassle and creates a distraction for anyone with children who is trying to sort their shopping and pack their bag while keeping their eye on them.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 3:42pm

Precious flower wrote: »

I don't agree with that and I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Let us be honest here, a child (or children) can be in a bad mood and have a tantrum over almost anything even if the child is 90% of the time fine, and it may not be so easy to pacify them once they start. It's not so easy to say 'no' while a child is screaming and refusing to listen to you.

Not every child will react calmly when you refuse them chocolate/sweets if they are in a particularly great mood that day, especially if it is a young child. I've no doubt that shopping with young children in tow is hard enough as is. I'm just saying there is really no need for sweets to be by the checkouts, it just creates hassle and creates a distraction for anyone with children who is trying to sort their shopping and pack their bag while keeping their eye on them.

Do we really need to go down the route of having legislation to minimise the chances of children having tantrums?

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 3:52pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do we really need to go down the route of having legislation to minimise the chances of children having tantrums?

I see no reason for the sweets to be at the checkouts? There is usually a whole aisle full not far away in most supermarkets. I don't see any reason for the need for them I can obviously see how it creates more spending for shops but I really think parents would appreciate not to have to deal with that every time they go out to shop. It would hardly be the end of the world for people to just go through the sweet aisle if they did want some.

turbot · 13-02-2014 3:55pm

homemadecider wrote: »

I heard this mentioned on Operation Transformation last night, they were petitioning the government to do something about it. Totally ridiculous IMO. Where a private shop places their products has nothing at all to do with the government.

Again it comes back to personal responsibility. Don't go to the supermarket hungry, stick to what's on your shopping list and you won't buy a load of impulse junk items.

I completely disagree.

Sugary sweets are highly addictive and packaged in a way that is very misleading for peoples brains. Children are too young to understand this and to be able to make responsible decisions - especially when marketers have spent billions on normalising the idea of eating food that is completely unhealthy and habit forming. Marketing companies understand the idea of adherence-which is that people will typically adhere to the conditions set up for them-because in practice people have very little willpower.

The government has a responsibility to counteract the multiple influence strategies used by FMCG companies which go largely unchecked and essentially teach people to think about sugary food in the wrong way and form unhealthy habits that are ultimately disastrous for health.

From exposure to advertising by chocolate companies, I still have a jingle in my head that goes as follows on "A Mars a day helps you work rest and play."

However if you do the maths on the real effects of a Mars a day, it does not help you work (due to blood sugar imbalance) it does not help you rest, and it does not help you play. In fact, it doesnt help you at all, but if you eat a mars a day for 5 or 10 years, theres a good chance its consumption will impair your clarity of mind, wellbeing *and* leave you overweight/obese with manboobs.

Conclusion: Chicolate should have similar labels as cigarette packets-because in the words of Patrick Holford, sugar is the cocaine of the food world.

Conclusion: It is grossly irresponsible to systemise the supply and marketing but incredibly unhealthy food and this must be changed because there is an oncoming health apocalypse of similar magnitude as the environmental apocalypse driven by global warming, based upon the mass availability of unhealthy food, promoted using misleading psychological tactics.

For the sake of children and who they grow up to be, it is irresponsible to place sweets at checkouts in supermarkets where families must queue to buy food. This is simply a habit activation strategy on the behalf of candy mega corporations.

Similar thinking here:

http://whatsheonaboutnow.com/why-is-coca-cola-advertising-everywhere/

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 3:57pm

Precious flower wrote: »

I see no reason for the sweets to be at the checkouts? There is usually a whole aisle full not far away in most supermarkets. I don't see any reason for the need for them I can obviously see how it creates more spending for shops but I really think parents would appreciate not to have to deal with that every time they go out to shop. It would hardly be the end of the world for people to just go through the sweet aisle if they did want some.

If you were running a business would you care more about your profit or parents not having to deal with saying 'no' to their child?

For every parent that would appreciate there being no sweets at the checkout, there's another 10 or more people impulse buying sweets at the checkout.

Until such time as its having a negative impact on their business, or it becomes apparent that making the change would have a positive impact on their business, then they won't change.

Stench Blossoms · 13-02-2014 4:00pm

siochain wrote: »

Do you have many kids?

Raised my ex's twins.

So technically they didn't come out of me but they were pretty much 'mine'.

And yes they had tantrums but never over sweets.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 4:04pm

turbot wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Sugary sweets are highly addictive and packaged in a way that is very misleading for peoples brains. Children are too young to understand this and to be able to make responsible decisions - especially when marketers have spent billions on normalising the idea of eating food that is completely unhealthy and habit forming. Marketing companies understand the idea of adherence-which is that people will typically adhere to the conditions set up for them-because in practice people have very little willpower.

The government has a responsibility to counteract the multiple influence strategies used by FMCG companies which go largely unchecked and essentially teach people to think about sugary food in the wrong way and form unhealthy habits that are ultimately disastrous for health.

From exposure to advertising by chocolate companies, I still have a jingle in my head that goes as follows on "A Mars a day helps you work rest and play."

However if you do the maths on the real effects of a Mars a day, it does not help you work (due to blood sugar imbalance) it does not help you rest, and it does not help you play. In fact, it doesnt help you at all, but if you eat a mars a day for 5 or 10 years, theres a good chance its consumption will impair your clarity of mind, wellbeing *and* leave you overweight/obese with manboobs.

Conclusion: Chicolate should have similar labels as cigarette packets-because in the words of Patrick Holford, sugar is the cocaine of the food world.

Conclusion: It is grossly irresponsible to systemise the supply and marketing but incredibly unhealthy food and this must be changed because there is an oncoming health apocalypse of similar magnitude as the environmental apocalypse driven by global warming, based upon the mass availability of unhealthy food, promoted using misleading psychological tactics.

Similar thinking here:

http://whatsheonaboutnow.com/why-is-coca-cola-advertising-everywhere/

I know that Mars jingle. I have it on a loop in my head now. I haven't had a Mars bar in years.

The one tv ad I will probably always remember (other than the Budweiser Christmas ad with the horses) is the Coke ad with the coke pouring on top of the ice cubes with the ice cubes dancing about in it. I can't remember the last time a drop of Coke passed my lips (or Budweiser for that matter).

Regardless of how good the marketing is, people still have a choice about what food they eat.

What label would you put on a chocolate bar anyway? A picture of Augustus Gloop?

siochain · 13-02-2014 4:31pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

If the child is having a tantrum over not getting sweets the parent should be re-evaluate how they've raised them.

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Raised my ex's twins.

So technically they didn't come out of me but they were pretty much 'mine'.

And yes they had tantrums but never over sweets.

Then you should know that a parent shouldn’t have to re-evaluate how they've raised them.

3 kids from the same parents raised the exact same way can all react differently to any given situation. This points back what others above have said whereby some stop a stare at people like their an alien family because a kid is crying.

siochain · 13-02-2014 4:31pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do we really need to go down the route of having legislation to minimise the chances of children having tantrums?

Defiantly not. If people don’t like it shop elsewhere.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 4:37pm

siochain wrote: »

Defiantly not. If people don’t like it shop elsewhere.

Or get some valium...

Stench Blossoms · 13-02-2014 4:40pm

siochain wrote: »

Then you should know that a parent shouldn’t have to re-evaluate how they've raised them.

3 kids from the same parents raised the exact same way can all react differently to any given situation. This points back what others above have said whereby some stop a stare at people like their an alien family because a kid is crying.

*Slightly off topic*

Ok maybe I said that wrong. I'm talking about a tantrum here. Not a child just crying. I'll give you an example of a different situation.

A friend of mine ALWAYS gives into her kid. Always. We were in Dundrum and paying for parking and my friend went to put the ticket in. The child let out the biggest roar I've ever heard and started screaming and stamping her feet because she wanted to put the ticket in.

What did my friend do? Let her put the ticket in. She rewarded the child (by letting her do what she wanted) after this little tantrum.

For a quiet life yeh, letting the kid put in the ticket was a good idea but realistically, there is something not quite right about kids throwing absolute tantrums because they don't get what they want.

A child will quickly learn that behaving like that will not result in them getting what they want if they aren't given what they were looking for.

Precious flower · 13-02-2014 5:02pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If you were running a business would you care more about your profit or parents not having to deal with saying 'no' to their child?

For every parent that would appreciate there being no sweets at the checkout, there's another 10 or more people impulse buying sweets at the checkout.

Until such time as its having a negative impact on their business, or it becomes apparent that making the change would have a positive impact on their business, then they won't change.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, I'd say they make a nice little bit from it, naturally they are going to consider profit first just like the way they have designed the aisle so that essentials are at the back and they have that lovely smell of baking bread that is all around the shop.
But I think was it Super Quinn that have taken away the sweets from the checkouts (think they were on Operation Transformation last night taking and they don't seem to have been adversely affected by it and I doubt that it solely had to do with them feeling morally obligated to do it.

I just think a parent who may have three young children swarming around her/him, to be allowed the peace of mind that at least the children wouldn't be tempted to start something at the checkout, at least over sweets.

Alf Veedersane · 13-02-2014 5:07pm

Precious flower wrote: »

But I think was it Super Quinn that have taken away the sweets from the checkouts (think they were on Operation Transformation last night taking and they don't seem to have been adversely affected by it and I doubt that it solely had to do with them feeling morally obligated to do it.

Well, unless you count them going into receivership as a positive

siochain · 13-02-2014 5:17pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

*Slightly off topic*

Ok maybe I said that wrong. I'm talking about a tantrum here. Not a child just crying. I'll give you an example of a different situation.

A friend of mine ALWAYS gives into her kid. Always. We were in Dundrum and paying for parking and my friend went to put the ticket in. The child let out the biggest roar I've ever heard and started screaming and stamping her feet because she wanted to put the ticket in.

What did my friend do? Let her put the ticket in. She rewarded the child (by letting her do what she wanted) after this little tantrum.

For a quiet life yeh, letting the kid put in the ticket was a good idea but realistically, there is something not quite right about kids throwing absolute tantrums because they don't get what they want.

A child will quickly learn that behaving like that will not result in them getting what they want if they aren't given what they were looking for.

Looking at from that point yeah your friend is not doing herself and more so the kids any favours.

An example from our estate where neighbours of ours have 3 boys, from looking on the parents are very balanced and I would say are good parents you know what I mean. Their kids are often in our house and I see them in the GAA during training. Two are like your average young boys and one is a total nightmare in all situations. I guess my point it's not always down to the parenting.

Cheers

Penny Tration · 14-02-2014 11:40am

Precious flower wrote: »

Oh, I'm well aware of that, I'd say they make a nice little bit from it, naturally they are going to consider profit first just like the way they have designed the aisle so that essentials are at the back and they have that lovely smell of baking bread that is all around the shop.
But I think was it Super Quinn that have taken away the sweets from the checkouts (think they were on Operation Transformation last night taking and they don't seem to have been adversely affected by it and I doubt that it solely had to do with them feeling morally obligated to do it.

I just think a parent who may have three young children swarming around her/him, to be allowed the peace of mind that at least the children wouldn't be tempted to start something at the checkout, at least over sweets.

My local superquinn haven't taken them away. The self service checkouts have two massive stands full of family sized bags of crisps, and the surrounding shelves in the self service enclosure at full of chocolate and sweets.

Bit silly legislating to have them removed, though.

Say no to your kids, and don't buy them for yourself.

Surely we, as adults, shouldn't need to be babied to such an extent.

ted1 · 14-02-2014 1:39pm

homemadecider wrote: »

Parents can simply say 'no'. If the child has a tantrum, remove them from the shop. It's not that hard.

Parents should say NO but some parents have no idea or interest in either themselves or their kids eating healthy and as such legislation maybe required.

legislation was provided to protect people from inhaling passive smoking. Passive bad diet and general eating of sh1t is equally as bad and regrettable their are parents out there that encourage this.

sweets at the check out are a quick and easy impulse buy.

in my opinion yes they should be removed.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 2:59pm

green_screen wrote: »

Surely we, as adults, shouldn't need to be babied to such an extent.

I suppose the same could be said for a million other things (cigarette & alcohol availability/advertising, sale of paracetamol in limited sizes, the list goes on).

As with anything, it is about balancing the pros and cons of every measure, particularly as they impact upon each party. The placing of sweets at checkouts is primarily a marketing tactic aimed at children. Prohibiting it arguably acts to protect children (and by extension parents) from that form of subtle marketing. Is removing that tactic an unreasonable attack on the rights of the retailer?

It is easy to say that parents should have the cop on to say 'no' (and especially easy to say when not in the middle of a shop with a child who is acting up). But its also easy to say that retailers shouldnt be subtly aiming their marketing practices at young children; yet saying it doesnt stop them from engaging in this practice. Making them stop doesnt seem like rough justice to me.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 3:05pm

drkpower wrote: »

The placing of sweets at checkouts is primarily a marketing tactic aimed at children.

Primarily aimed at children?

I doubt it. The number of adults wihtout children in tow that go through checkouts hugely outnumbers the adults that go through with kids.

It's a tactic to catch out people prone to impulse buys, which is a large proportion of the adult poulation.The number of sweets sold to parents who have been asked to buy them buy their kids would be a small proportion.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 3:11pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Primarily aimed at children?

I doubt it. The number of adults wihtout children in tow that go through checkouts hugely outnumbers the adults that go through with kids.

It's a tactic to catch out people prone to impulse buys, which is a large proportion of the adult poulation.The number of sweets sold to parents who have been asked to buy them buy their kids would be a small proportion.

Even if that is the case, the same point applies; is that 'marketing right' worth preserving when weighed against potential harm (whether it is harm to children or adults)?

Prohibiting that tactic does not seem like an unjustiable interference when weighed against the potential harm.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 3:13pm

drkpower wrote: »

Even if that is the case, the same point applies; is that 'marketing right' worth preserving when weighed against potential harm (whether it is harm to children or adults)?

Prohibiting that tactic does not seem like an unjustiable interference when weighed against the potential harm.

Why not remove sweets from the shop altogether so?

drkpower · 14-02-2014 3:20pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Why not remove sweets from the shop altogether so?

Is that a genuine suggestion? When they introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol that could be sold to an individual customer, did you ask 'why not remove paracetamol from pharmacists/shops altogether so?'.

As I said at the outset, it is about balancing the pros and cons of every measure, particularly as they impact upon each party. Prohibiting the sale of sweets would be a disproportionate interference with the retailer (not to mention their customers). Issues like this cant be solved with binary choices (as per your suggestion) or with mathematic formulae. They require a bit of thought and judgment, and sometimes hard choices.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 3:36pm

drkpower wrote: »

Is that a genuine suggestion? When they introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol that could be sold to an individual customer, did you ask 'why not remove paracetamol from pharmacists/shops altogether so?'.

As I said at the outset, it is about balancing the pros and cons of every measure, particularly as they impact upon each party. Prohibiting the sale of sweets would be a disproportionate interference with the retailer (not to mention their customers). Issues like this cant be solved with binary choices (as per your suggestion) or with mathematic formulae. They require a bit of thought and judgment, and sometimes hard choices.

It wasn't a genuine suggestion insofar as I don't think sweets should be removed from shops because where do you draw the line? If the rationale is to remove something because people cannot control themselves when it comes to sugar, then where do you draw the line in terms of what you remove from shops.

And there's a very big difference between paracetomol and sweets. There's no comparison.

If we have to make retailers move sweets from the checkouts because some people can't help themselves, it's a sad state of affairs.

And as a means of tackling obesity, it's a long way down the rankings of useful measures.

It's a moot point anyway. They didn't legislate for calories on charts in cafes, restaurants etc a couple opf years ago so removing sweets from checkout aisles isn't going to happen either.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 4:00pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It wasn't a genuine suggestion insofar as I don't think sweets should be removed from shops because where do you draw the line? If the rationale is to remove something because people cannot control themselves when it comes to sugar, then where do you draw the line in terms of what you remove from shops.

And there's a very big difference between paracetomol and sweets. There's no comparison.

If we have to make retailers move sweets from the checkouts because some people can't help themselves, it's a sad state of affairs.

And as a means of tackling obesity, it's a long way down the rankings of useful measures.

It's a moot point anyway. They didn't legislate for calories on charts in cafes, restaurants etc a couple opf years ago so removing sweets from checkout aisles isn't going to happen either.

The analogy drawn with paracetamol is to demonstarte that we - through the State - often do impose restrictions on how people can access products which are perfectly legal and safe (when used appropriately). The same can be said for a multitude of products. And we have 'drawn the line' already in many different scenarios, so the ship has sailed on your question 'where do we draw the line' (insofar as you asked it to suggest that we should no nothing because drawing the line is too difficult).

And yes there is a big difference between paracetamol and sweets; but perhaps not the one you might have been thinking of. Paracetamol is entirely safe except in overdose (accidental or otherwise). The rate of overdose is very small. Paracetamol's effect on public health is dwarfed by the potential health risk posed by the excess intake of sugar (in the form of sweets and many other prodcuts) which is now typical, particularly amongst chldren. So the measures taken to counter it should arguably be stronger than those in place for the likes of paracetamol.

And yes, sweets at the counter may be one very small part of the problem but that does not mean it shouldnt be addressed if we can do so without greatly inconveniencing retailers. And we can do that.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 4:14pm

Comparing paracetomol and sweets doesn't hold up. Not least because the restrictions for paracetomol are different to what's being proposed for sweets and also because you won't die of an overdose of sweets.

Otherwise I'd have died on Easter Sunday 1984.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 4:29pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Comparing paracetomol and sweets doesn't hold up. Not least because the restrictions for paracetomol are different to what's being proposed for sweets and also because you won't die of an overdose of sweets.

Indeed; but sugar will kill you, and cause increased morbidity, in many other ways. And will kill far more of us than paracetamol ever will.

Just becasue two products do not cause harm in precisely the same way does not mean you cannot compare the public health strategies used to reduce harm.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 14-02-2014 4:32pm

why don't we just ban everything that contains more than 1 ingredient...

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 4:42pm

drkpower wrote: »

Indeed; but sugar will kill you, and cause increased morbidity, in many other ways. And will kill far more of us than paracetamol ever will.

Sugar is present in a lot more of what's consumed than paracetomol.

If the problem society has with sugar was down to the sweets at the checkout, I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with the proposal.

But it's a red herring.

Time and resources would be better spent elsewhere.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 4:46pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Sugar is present in a lot more of what's consumed than paracetomol.

If the problem society has with sugar was down to the sweets at the checkout, I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with the proposal.

But it's a red herring.

Time and resources would be better spent elsewhere.

Your last sentence may be true but that doesnt mean your second last sentence is true! Addressing 'sweets at the counter' can be done with no affect on our time and resources. It poses very little disadvantage to the retailer or the customer. Its the 'low hanging fruit'. I cant see a convincing reason not to pick it.

Alf Veedersane · 14-02-2014 5:12pm

drkpower wrote: »

Your last sentence may be true but that doesnt mean your second last sentence is true! Addressing 'sweets at the counter' can be done with no affect on our time and resources. It poses very little disadvantage to the retailer or the customer. Its the 'low hanging fruit'. I cant see a convincing reason not to pick it.

It's the principle. Legislating where to put sweets. Really?

It's a moot point anyway...there are easy ways to take more effective action.

If they legislated for sweets at checkouts, that'd be the only action they'd take for the next 20 years. In which case, I'd rather something a better was done.

ford2600 · 14-02-2014 5:16pm

Official government policy, on the basis of junk science, is to promote the almost unlimited use of carbohydrate i.e. food pyramid, low fat message which has been the message for 30 years or so.

Given for most part, population have done as told with the help of food companies and a medical profession asleep at the wheel, probably doesn't matter much. People craving sugar will find it and get it anyhow.

This is a non issue when see in context of effect of low fat diet pushing of last 30 years. If they ever see their folly they will probably be afraid to do uturn for fear of litigation

rubadub · 14-02-2014 6:09pm

drkpower wrote: »

When they introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol that could be sold to an individual customer, did you ask 'why not remove paracetamol from pharmacists/shops altogether so?'

I have heard some say paracetamol would be a prescription drug if released today, not even OTC, and possibly not released at all.

The restriction on paracetamol is simple to enforce, I believe in supermarkets it is 12 packs of 500mg each. I thought at the time it was mainly to prevent the easy of a spur of the moment suicidal overdose
http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/6947/

In Ireland, there were 7933 recorded cases of drug overdose in 2004, of which 31% involved paracetamol.4 It is against the law for pharmacies in Ireland to sell more than 24 paracetamol (500 mg) tablets in a single transaction.5 In early 2007, we visited 20 pharmacies in Dublin and attempted to purchase amounts of paracetamol in excess of this legal limit: ten pharmacies allowed us to do so

drkpower wrote: »

The placing of sweets at checkouts is primarily a marketing tactic aimed at children. Prohibiting it

Prohibit what? serious question, what are sweets?, what is a checkout area?
I have asked for definitions in many threads about "junk food" or "fast food". This is why I say paracetamol is very easy. If you define sweets as something having sugar of over 25% and allow 12 to be bought at a time at a size no greater than 20g then you have ruled out loads of things.

Manufacturer's might possibly find loopholes, get a mars bar and add a mulitvitamin tablet to it, change the name to breakfast bar and suddenly it might be in the "healthy" aisle.

Alcohol sales had voluntary restrictions put on them recently, about not having them on every aisle in supermarkets etc. I was glad to see it was not legislation, I would not want a bunch of overpaid (paid by me) government inspectors going around supermarkets with measuring tapes to determine checkout area size and inspecting wrappers.

I see no problem with a common sense voluntary recommendation, if they do take it up they will not look for loopholes.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 6:13pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's the principle. Legislating where to put sweets. Really?

It's a moot point anyway...there are easy ways to take more effective action.

If they legislated for sweets at checkouts, that'd be the only action they'd take for the next 20 years. In which case, I'd rather something a better was done.

Legislating how many paracetamol i can buy? Really?

If your point is that this is not the most pressing issue (vis a vis tacking obesity) facing us, we are in agreement. But as one of a suite (;)) of initiatives, i support it.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 6:22pm

rubadub wrote: »

I have heard some say paracetamol would be a prescription drug if released today, not even OTC, and possibly not released at all.

The restriction on paracetamol is simple to enforce, I believe in supermarkets it is 12 packs of 500mg each. I thought at the time it was mainly to prevent the easy of a spur of the moment suicidal overdose
http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/6947/.

Im not sure its risk profile is as bad as you might have heard. It remains the simple painkiller most commonly advised by most HCPs, safe in children, adults and in pregnant women.

Its actually not that easy to enforce, more difficult than sweets at the counter. A sweetie inspector can walk into the store and immediately see if there is a breach. Its quite easy to trick a paracetamol inspector!

rubadub wrote: »

Prohibit what? serious question, what are sweets?, what is a checkout area?
I have asked for definitions in many threads about "junk food" or "fast food". This is why I say paracetamol is very easy. If you define sweets as something having sugar of over 25% and allow 12 to be bought at a time at a size no greater than 20g then you have ruled out loads of things.

Manufacturer's might possibly find loopholes, get a mars bar and add a mulitvitamin tablet to it, change the name to breakfast bar and suddenly it might be in the "healthy" aisle..

Defining these things can pose problems for sure, and im sure certain products would often slip through the net. Manufacturers will always try and make the unhealthy appear in the healthy aisle (cereal bars ....). But the perfect is the enemy of the good. You dont ditch a good proposal because you might not be able to create a perfect one.

rubadub wrote: »

Alcohol sales had voluntary restrictions put on them recently, about not having them on every aisle in supermarkets etc. I was glad to see it was not legislation, I would not want a bunch of overpaid (paid by me) government inspectors going around supermarkets with measuring tapes to determine checkout area size and inspecting wrappers.

I see no problem with a common sense voluntary recommendation, if they do take it up they will not look for loopholes.

If a voluntary code/agreement had some prospect of success, i would much prefer it, no doubt. But the issue of obesity/diabetes prevalence rates is of such massive significance, i would be reluctant to wait too long for industry to simply agree to take actions that hits their bottom line.

rubadub · 14-02-2014 6:43pm

drkpower wrote: »

Its actually not that easy to enforce, more difficult than sweets at the counter. A sweetie inspector can walk into the store and immediately see if there is a breach.

What is the breach? This is why I asked for suggested definitions, it is not some trivial point, it kills it dead in the water from the start.

This is why I say voluntary would be better, as shoppers could say "here I thought you said no sweets were going to be at checkouts" and you cannot have some smartarse manager saying "well sue me, its only 26% sugar, the limit is 27%" or "its clearly outside the 1.5 metre zone". It could end up like the headshops, "those technically aren't drugs/sweets"

If I try and scan 2 packs of paracetomol in tesco I bet it would refuse the sale, at self service or regular checkout. I bet its programmed in, just like in lidl it pops up asking if the person is over 23 or whatever if alcohol scans, and in tesco the self service insists on it being approved if you buy booze. Probably far easier to get it in pharmacies over the limit. In tesco you can walk back in again and get more packs. The checkout is not going to detect where you picked up an item, and inputting all the various values of sugar levels etc would be a nightmare.

The problem with any of these things is regular foods fall can under the banners, so you ban avocados, tinned fruit, fruit juice, cream etc.

I did see some UK site which had a bit list of exemptions like nuts etc.

drkpower wrote: »

You dont ditch a good proposal because you might not be able to create a perfect one.

A lot of "Junk food"/"fast food"/"high sugar" banning or restriction ideas have been ditched for that very reason, they cannot find a reasonable one, let alone a perfect one.

I haven't heard about the calories on menus much in the news lately, they did try to define fast food places, something like if an item is on the menu for over 3 weeks it must have info available. Ironically the fast food places are usually the ones with the info freely available, and are often smaller portions than most hotels or restaurants would give anyways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20280863

The Danish government has said it intends to abolish a tax on foods which are high in saturated fats.

The measure, introduced a little over a year ago, was believed to be the world's first so-called "fat tax".

Foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fat - including dairy produce, meat and processed foods - were subject to the surcharge.

But authorities said the tax had inflated food prices and put Danish jobs at risk.

here is a site with a voluntary type one, or how to complain in a sort of organised manner
http://www.sustainweb.org/childrensfoodcampaign/chuck_junk/

Dunnes already have sign posts about "operation transformation foods" around certain products, a program like that could have good voluntary influence and can be potentially good for profits.

I never see tantrums at checkouts these days, I often see parents feeding kids from mulitpacks of bars in the checkout line, the bars at the checkout usually cost a hell of a lot more.

Qualitymark · 14-02-2014 7:18pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Well, unless you count them going into receivership as a positive

Superquinn when run by Feargal Quinn was very, very profitable. He barred sweets from checkouts, he kept much of the buying local, so that customers would be facilitated by their local shop buying food they liked, he visited every shop often personally to see how well it was running, and from all I heard he was a nice guy to work for. (Our local Superquinn had the same staff for years.) He also had a policy of employing disabled people; one of the staff in this local was a lad with Down's Syndrome who'd been getting wild before he was employed, but when he had a responsible job was *so* happy, and *so* valued and good at his work.

Quinn's family didn't want to continue the business, and so he sold it. It wasn't under his management that it ran into trouble.

Meanwhile…

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/discounters/lidl/lidl-ditches-sweets-from-checkout-queues/353488.article

Lidl UK to ban sweets from checkouts

Interesting points in this piece on why Lidl UK is taking this step.

Also:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/13/lidl-bans-sweets-at-checkout

Lidl has banned sweets and chocolate bars from the checkout at all 600 of its UK stores after surveying parents about the "pester power" of their children.

<snip>

Lidl customer research showed that seven out of 10 customers would choose a sweet-free checkout over the traditional one laden with chocolate bars. In a survey for the supermarket, 68% of parents said they were pestered by their children for chocolate at the checkout, and 66% gave in some or all of the time.

drkpower · 14-02-2014 8:31pm

Rubadub: On breach of paracetamol regs, all u need to do if u want to breach regs is to ring additional purchases in separately. Not that difficult (although clearly the likes of tesco would never take that chance).

Defining the level of sugar would be problematic. But it is very easy to do. It will lead to hard cases, sure, and novel attempts to escape the law, but that is par for the course. I think the reality is that if such a law came into place, retailers wouldn't bother to try and flirt the edges of the law as it wouldn't be worth it to try and creatively escape it. So the concerns u have raised are unlikely to ever be relevant.

Fat taxes have been ditched for many reasons, not just because they have been difficult to frame. One of the more prominent ones to have been shelved (NYC soda laws) certainly wasn't because of a definition difficulty.

I agree with the thrust of ur argument that voluntary is better. But I wonder is the pace of voluntary change fast enough given the extent of the risks posed by these products.

Interrobang · 14-02-2014 11:52pm

The simple fact is, our kids are always going to be faced with the temptation of junk food, whether at the supermarket checkout or elsewhere. Having them at checkouts means that they're not hidden away (and therefore a special food to be disproportionately desired), and you have the opportunity to have a frank conversation with them about how sweets fit into an overall balanced diet.

It took my eldest until age five to even think about asking for something in the supermarket, and the answer then, as always is no. But it was "No, because...", and evolved into a wider, general chat. The youngest has yet to ask for something, I've no doubt that some day he will, and the response will be the same.

Doing the shopping is a fantastic opportunity to teach your kids about good nutrition. I get mine involved by letting them help make up the list beforehand (I use a preprinted template of my own with separate columns for meat, fish, veg, fruit, dairy, etc.) that we fill in at home, and they take charge of ticking off the food as it goes into the trolley and calling out the next item. They also have leeway to think about alternatives if, say, we have sweet potatoes on the list but the ones in the shop look a bit manky, or if we want hake from the fishmongers but it's out of stock. And if it's not on the list, it doesn't go in the trolley.

They also get involved in meal planning so that I can hopefully teach them about the components of a balanced day nutrition-wise (and how to plan with leftovers) without having to actually make it a 'thing'. Of course the planner can be tweaked as the week goes on, meals swapped around, etc., but the basic principles are hopefully sound.

(I also use shopping as a way of letting them decide which size product to go for based on price per kilo or litre. Maths is fun, and helps you save money for fun things!

)

TL,DR: Leave the sweets where they are and don't avoid having a conversation with your kids about where they fit into a balanced and healthy approach to nutrition. If you make sweets taboo, you give them more importance than they deserve. And say no.

Qualitymark · 15-02-2014 11:40am

Having the sweets *away* from the checkout doesn't mean they're not available, and parents can still have those conversations. But since most people (including kids) shop when they're tired and a bit cranky, if there are sweets at the checkout means that *every time you pass that checkout* there's the same stress.
Why would Lidl take the sweets away from the checkout in England, but not in Ireland? Different management styles in the two countries, I suppose; but it's an awful pity that in this case, the style should be to put sugary, fatty things at the point everyone pauses at.
I loved when Superquinn took the sweets away and put them at the back of the shop, as a fair deal to parents. I'm sad that so many people think the checkout where childless people also have to stand and wait should be the place where they have their parenting demonstrations.
But then, the My-Little-Darling style of parenting, once a British Home Counties thing, seems to be seeping into Ireland; there's one local cafe where I no longer go because of the self-entitled children talking at the top of their voices and their 'Mummay' self-indulgently and self-consciously 'parenting' them.

Says I To Bridey · 15-02-2014 11:22pm

I'm torn on this. A few years ago I would have laughed it off as a ridiculous notion. But the more we learn about the brain, the more apparent it becomes as to how addictive some of these foods are. I'm all for personal responsibility, but you only have to look at the current overweight and obesity trend to know something is wrong. These foods are designed and marketed with the idea to get people to buy more and buy often, and recent reports showing junk elicits a similar response in the brain as some addictive drugs. I know this is a only a personal observation, but I've smoked, drank and taken drugs in the past, but the biggest cravings I've ever had have been for junk food. I could take or leave anything else, but if I get a craving for something sugary, particularly late at night I'd struggle not to give in. Now I'm lucky enough to have never struggled with weight and exercise every week, but I've become somewhat more sympathetic to people trying to lose weight than I used to be, although it is obviously up to the individual to overcome it. But if you were overweight as a child and inherited poor eating habits from parents, it must be a struggle. If banning junk food at the checkout till helps cut back on consumption of junk food and impulse buys, it may not be a bad thing.

Alf Veedersane · 16-02-2014 12:08am

I've been that person that's struggled with weight...i've made bad choices. But I've stopped. I don't choose to have sweets at a checkout. They're not even that noticeable at a supermarket. They're more noticeable at the likes of Spar or Centra, to name but two. I walk by plenty of items in the shop...some I choose not to buy, some I do. People who want to rely on how addictive they are want an excuse for making the wrong choice.

Orla K · 16-02-2014 11:27am

Someone please explain to me why your arguing over something that makes up 5% of the diet, at best. The other 95% matters a whole lot more. If sweets/chocolate were removed from the checkout it would make little difference to peoples health except have a little less stress if they're parents.

Sweets at checkout

Comments