Sweets at checkout

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.

Qualitymark · 16-02-2014 5:08pm

Orla K wrote: »

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.

It would make a big difference to my health; I'd no longer have an earache from the skreeky whining of children and parents at each other!

Orla K · 16-02-2014 6:20pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

It would make a big difference to my health; I'd no longer have an earache from the skreeky whining of children and parents at each other!

But you'd still hear it in the aisles. Also how much does that actually happen. I can only remember hearing a child whining once and that was because it was tired.
Being a bit less aggravated for a few minutes a week won't do that much to you health.

I still don't know about this thread the stuff at the till make up for less than 5% of the diet.

Alf Veedersane · 16-02-2014 7:40pm

Orla K wrote:

still don't know about this thread the stuff at the till make up for less than 5% of the diet.

It's nonsense because it'd have so little impact it'd almost be pointless.

It's not a low-hanging fruit...it's fallen off and is rotting on the ground.

Mellor · 17-02-2014 8:17am

This thread is ridiculous.
Sweets at checkouts isn't some devious tactic forcing sugar children upon. For the most part they are less assessible to kids than the bulk of the sweets which are on the aisle.
I'd be pretty confidant that the majority if sweets bought from the checkout stands are bought by adults for themselves.
I'd say they contribute to such a tiny percent of sweets/junk sold in the supermarket, that there is no significant difference between shops that do and don't have them at checkouts - other than that which is related to a difference customer demographic.

Sweets at checkouts are not the reason anyone has a bad diet. Adults, children a like. People need to take responsibility for their own choices, and the choices they make in behalf of their kids.

Qualitymark · 17-02-2014 8:53am

Well, thanks for setting me right on that.

Why do you think Lidl in the UK got rid of the sweets at checkouts? This is one reason given: (http://www.canadiangrocer.com/worth-reading/lidl-removes-candy-from-the-checkout-in-u-k-36526)

Last year, Lidl U.K. trialled healthy checkouts replacing sweets with fruit and juice. Results showed sales went up 20%.

Mellor · 17-02-2014 9:10am

Qualitymark wrote: »

Well, thanks for setting me right on that.

Why do you think Lidl in the UK got rid of the sweets at checkouts? This is one reason given: (http://www.canadiangrocer.com/worth-reading/lidl-removes-candy-from-the-checkout-in-u-k-36526)

That's a meaningless statistic. Lidl entire business template is based around promotional products. It's makes perfect sense that if they increased shelf units for fruit juice that they'd self more. It's about as relevant as increased BBQs gear in summer and raincoats in winter.
I note that they don't give figures for drop in sale of sweets/junk.

Also massive lol at replacing sugary sweets with sugary fruit juice. Obesity is solved !!! Hurray.

Qualitymark · 17-02-2014 9:17am

No, despite your rude statement, this isn't meaningless: *overall* sales grew by 20%.

Mellor · 17-02-2014 10:21am

Qualitymark wrote: »

No, despite your rude statement, this isn't meaningless: *overall* sales grew by 20%.

I was pretty direct with my point, but I don't see how I was rude. Other than laughing at Lidl's idea of healthy - hardly relevant to anyone here.

Are you suggesting that all sales grew by 20%? That's not what they are saying. Check a few other articles. What they are actually said happened was that sweet-free tills had 20% more customers.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-14/lidl-first-supermarket-to-ban-sweets-from-checkouts/

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4588040/

Which is unsurprising, some people would obviously choose those tils over others. But it means nothing in terms of the sale of sweets. The people who buying the sweets at tils aren't avoiding them, ergo it's meaningless.

Qualitymark · 17-02-2014 10:22am

Ah, my misunderstanding; there's a pair of us in it.

But if sweet-free tills have 20% more customers, surely that in itself suggests that it's a good thing? (Except perhaps for the checkout clerk!)

Mellor · 17-02-2014 10:36am

Not really. Assuming the tills were laid out evenly (big assumption given its a marketing department). It just means maybe 10% of people actively avoided the sweet tills. The rest just went about their business. This were probably people making smart choices anyway, so the net effect of sugar/sweets sales is prob very small, if there's any difference.

People have to make food choices multiple times a day. Sweets at the supermarket til is a once a week situation, it's not the problem.

Sweets at checkout

Comments