Safe food.

Do the Ad from safe food Ireland get on your nerves, you know the ones about children being over weight the latest one is the one about saying no to children in the supermarket, they really annoy me its nanny state over kill and its making parents out to be so stupid that they need to be told to give child size portions to small children. There was also a whole primetime program about the issue which was insulting of a lot of people.

I know there are issue with people becoming over weigh and I would support children being weighted by the public health nurse and the parents being discreetly informed if their child needed to lose weight but that's about it and that how we should deal with it.

force eleven

*grabs lo salt no butter popcorn*

Alf Veedersane

There are plenty of stuoid parents out there that know less than zero about nutrition. The kind that thinks a that a child-size portion is giving a child a 6-inch pizza while they have a 9-inch pizza.

R.D. aka MR.D

Do you also feel insulted by drink driving ads?

Tasden

Well obviously something has to be done because parents aren't saying no or doing what they should to stop their kids eating crap. So they're being patronised because they haven't being doing it thus far, no matter how obvious it is.

And the phn weighing and discussing weight is how its done, til a certain age at least, and its not working.
Also people know their kids are overweight and have a bad diet, one person saying it discreetly isn't going to make them change their habits. A national campaign may not either but I'd say it'd do more than a discreet word from a phn Tbh.

jigglypuffstuff

mariaalice wrote: »

Do the Ad from safe food Ireland get on your nerves, you know the ones about children being over weight the latest one is the one about saying no to children in the supermarket, they really annoy me its nanny state over kill and its making parents out to be so stupid that they need to be told to give child size portions to small children. There was also a whole primetime program about the issue which was insulting of a lot of people.

I know there are issue with people becoming over weigh and I would support children being weighted by the public health nurse and the parents being discreetly informed if their child needed to lose weight but that's about it and that how we should deal with it.

Well lets look at this logically

Children got fat

Children exercise less

Parents hold the responsibilty to change that

Parents dont encourage kids to exercise enough

Parents feed kids too much and not the right types of food

Parents are ignorant to basic nutrition and physiological wellbeing

Or to put it in your terms

Parents are so stupid that they need to be informed about portion size etc

So wheres your argument again??

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

its making parents out to be so stupid that they need to be told to give child size portions to small children.

You say that like it's not true.

Lots of parents give their children similar dinners to themselves. Lots of parents know nothing about nutrition (I know my mother didn't have a clue). Even the parents that do know about what they should be feeding their children often give up in order to give their kid something they like because it's less hassle. Yes, there are parents who feed their kids right, but is that any reason to ignore the issue? Just because some uppity parents might get offended because they care more about being seen as good parents than about getting on board with fixing what's starting to look like a national problem.

gramar

Looking at some of the porky kids about I'd say some parents do need to be told what to feed their kids.

Unfortunately nowadays fatty foods and treats are an everyday standard as opposed to being an occasional treat to be savoured rather than forming the main part of some kid's diet.

Well a lot of public information Ad are silly, do you really think people slow down or stop drink driving because an Ad told them to, no they don't change in society does not happen like that.

The weight one is a very complex area and people blame simplistic areas such as the spread of Mc Donald's for example while ignoring the availability of chicken fillet roles in almost every garage.

Alf Veedersane

mariaalice wrote: »

The weight one is a very complex area and people blame simplistic areas such as the spread of Mc Donald's for example while ignoring the availability of chicken fillet roles in almost every garage.

That and the fact that you're legally obliged to eat the rubbish in McDonalds and garages because they're there.

It's hard to eat well when you're literally being forced to choose to eat badly.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

The weight one is a very complex area and people blame simplistic areas such as the spread of Mc Donald's for example while ignoring the availability of chicken fillet roles in almost every garage.

The ad doesn't address a simplistic area or mention McDonalds.

It mentions that fact that children should be eating small portions and not be given loads of snacks. Sounds about right to me.

jigglypuffstuff

mariaalice wrote: »

The weight one is a very complex area and people blame simplistic areas such as the spread of Mc Donald's for example while ignoring the availability of chicken fillet roles in almost every garage.

Not at all complicated

People are just plain lazy and dont give a s**t about their appearance or health or the burden they put on the state or others, or the bullying they set themselves or their children up for...all very selfish really

Nobodys ignoring that?

Mr. CooL ICE

I've seen that ad, advising parents to give their children less food. Not even a vegetable was seen

stefan idiot jones

I thought this was going to be about empty jars of curry paste. I am dissapoint.

whirlpool

mariaalice wrote: »

Do the Ad from safe food Ireland get on your nerves, you know the ones about children being over weight the latest one is the one about saying no to children in the supermarket, they really annoy me its nanny state over kill and its making parents out to be so stupid that they need to be told to give child size portions to small children. There was also a whole primetime program about the issue which was insulting of a lot of people.

I know there are issue with people becoming over weigh and I would support children being weighted by the public health nurse and the parents being discreetly informed if their child needed to lose weight but that's about it and that how we should deal with it.

Childhood obesity - and adulthood obesity - is a very real issue and a very serious problem.

Comments such as yours are nonsense. It's not just you - there are thousands of people out there who just like you like to resist authority just for the sake of it. But it's nonsense.

Alf Veedersane

Here's the ad

How very dare they?!

Tasden

Also, I'd be the first to admit I sometimes give my child a portion close enough in size to mine, usually she'd leave most of it which is a waste anyway, but its just something in my head makes me feel bad about giving her less, ridiculous I know, but since the add I've made an effort to give her less. And I'm not a simpleton nor is my child fat or even chubby, she eats healthy and the right amount for her age/size, it was simply just a bad habit and the ad kicked it out of me so it can work.

seamus

mariaalice wrote: »

its making parents out to be so stupid that they need to be told to give child size portions to small children.

They are that stupid. People in general are that stupid. But it's also a problem of education.

Growing up, nobody ever mentioned portion size to me. Ever. "Eat until you're full". Isn't that generally what people take as a guideline for how much they personally should eat? Similarly for children, parents are generally told to feed the child if it's hungry. Feed your child until he doesn't want any more. The actual size of the portion isn't given much airing. So if your child will eat a nine-inch pizza, give him a nine-inch pizza.

Nuh-uh. As a parent you instinctually want your child to eat and you would rather they ate too much than not enough. But in our age of hyper-processed foods, we can't operate like that anymore, because "full" no longer means they've had enough for that meal. With some foods, "full" means I've eaten my entire daily needs in a single meal.

People also differ. Some kids will eat a lot. Others won't. So the "let the child eat their fill" approach doesn't work in either direction. Some kids will eat too little, most will eat too much.

There was also a whole primetime program about the issue which was insulting of a lot of people.

I guess you probably mean "insulting" in terms of telling parents how to raise their kids, but we need to get away from this idea that we should avoid indirectly insulting people. "That programme insults me". So?
This is part of the problem; doctors and nurses are afraid to tell parents their children are fat or that they are fat, for fear of offending them. Fnck that. If they're fat, you tell them. If a patient walked in and said they drank six cans a day, you'd tell them they were an alcoholic. So why when a clearly wobbly patient walks in, are they afraid to tell them they're fat?
It's up to the patient to work on it, and if you feel insulted by the truth, tough ****.

I know there are issue with people becoming over weigh and I would support children being weighted by the public health nurse and the parents being discreetly informed if their child needed to lose weight but that's about it and that how we should deal with it.

"Issue" is playing down the severity of the problem a bit. I don't like the word "epidemic", but it's a good descriptive word for the increasing severity of the problem.

http://www.cuh.ie/index.php?id=129&items=68
One in four primary school children are overweight. That's a big figure and a big problem. I was a fat child. Fat children becomes fat teenagers, become fat young adults, become walking heart-attack-time-bombs in their 30s. The fat doesn't magically vanish when the child gets older, it just becomes a bigger and bigger problem as they age.

The reason this is a major concern is because it means our already failed health system will be taking on more and more of a burden, sooner and sooner. When I was growing up, heart attacks and heart problems were things that happened to people in their late 40s and onwards. In the last ten years, I've heard of so many people going in for surgery, or being rushed to A&E and in their mid-30s, for heart problems.

When you're barely halfway through your statistical life expectancy and your heart is giving you trouble, well that's bad news.

We need to work on it now, ensure that children today understand nutrition, and the only way to do that is to go through the parents; educate the parents. You can talk nutrition to the kids in school all day, but when they go home they get fed by their parents.

hfallada

I think any advertising from a state body is a waste of money. Like the amount of stop smoking ads is ridiculous. But yet people who have worked with tobacco companies say stoping young people taking up the habit is more effective. I haven't seen any ads targeting youth smoking except for ones paid for by the EU.

Likewise Irish children are so over weight. But I imagine 90% of overweight children's parents have no idea their children are overweight. All Irish school children should be weight regularly and their parents told of their child is over weight

hfallada

hfallada wrote: »

I think any advertising from a state body is a waste of money. Like the amount of stop smoking ads is ridiculous. But yet people who have worked with tobacco companies say stoping young people taking up the habit is more effective. I haven't seen any ads targeting youth smoking except for ones paid for by the EU.

Likewise Irish children are so over weight. But I imagine 90% of overweight children's parents have no idea their children are overweight. All Irish school children should be weight regularly and their parents told of their child is over weight

That more my point, the ads are too simplistic as a way of addressing the problem, nobody seem to be looking at the changes in society, for example I walked two mile to and from school from the age of 4 and only had sweets after mass on Sundays, walking to school wasn't called exercise it was just part of life!, my mother did not think of food as nutrition, food was expensive and shops were mile away we grew our own potatoes not as a hobby but because we had too to feed a large family.

A relative of mine works as child-minder and she is told to drive the children to and from school, but she is to then drive them to a playground so they can play!!, young women are reluctant to give up smoking in case they might put on weight!, again young women offen try to give up bread ( bread has become a real baddie ) but wont give up drinking or binge drinking , blaming their weight on bread and chocolate and not acknowledging that alcohol is the problem, becoming obsessed with the idea that it all cause by fast food, when it is cause by eating too much of any kind of food and not doing enough an do on.

biko

Temper tantrum in aisle 12

Dravokivich

There is a massive problem with how a lot of parents feed their kids. I've seen grossly overweight 2 year olds and thought to myself, "how could someone do that to them" and then send them off to the shops to get sweets.

The reason why this message is "overly simplified" is dare I risk it, because a lot of these people doing this to their kids are rather simple. Sending them off for a chipper more days than not. Grease laden pizza's all the time. Then constantly drinking fizzy drinks.

Inactivity, granted is another thing that needs consideration, but with the shíte a lot of these kids are fed in the first place they aren't in much of a position to be active.

blacklilly

These campaigns are needed, our government have a responsibility to inform/educate our population on matters concerning health.

I've a few friends in the medical profession and some of the stories they tell about some parents lack of knowledge surrounding what I would consider basic nutritional information is astounding.

If these ads help those parents make better choices for their children then I'm all for it.

Irish Steve

It's nothing like as simplistic as it's being presented.

Part of the problem is that the culture has changed, and it's not deemed "safe" for kids to play outdoors any more, and in some areas, it might be safe, but there's no open spaces for the kids to play safely on.

Part of the problem is that it's not deemed "safe" for kids to walk a mile to school, or there's not enough time for them to walk, so the car is a "time saver". Yeah!

Part of the problem is that the roads are too darn dangerous for kids to be using them on bikes, so they don't get the same exercise in that area that they used to.

Part of the problem is that mum is not a house maker any more, she has to work to pay the bills, so pre prepared meals, canned drinks and snack foods are the norm, and they are loaded with "extra" like added sugar and salt that are no help to a balanced diet. In some respects, a sugar tax might not be such a bad idea, if it means that people get to know what is really bad in terms of the calorie content. It might be easier for the mum and the kids to pick up a can rather than for someone to make a glass of squash up from the concentrate and then add the water to it, the calorie difference is massive.

Part of the problem is that schools don't have time or facilities for "physical exercise" of any sort, no gym, no games, and in some cases, no competitive sports, as "losing might traumatise the child".

Part of the problem is things like console games, Play stations and the like, that encourage solo sedentary activity, so no movement, or interaction with others.

When these are all added together, there have been a lot of undesirable changes that have all combined to put modern families under huge pressure in comparison to the way things were, and while I'm not exactly stone age, my childhood was a long time ago.

There's a number of issues with SafeFood.

First - how big a problem is food hygiene anyway? Does it justify the huge amount of money we appear to spend on telling people how to cook chicken, or to check a use by date? Do other countries do this?

Second - there's good evidence that their style of advertising does not work on the target audience. People do not absorb facts and figures or logical argument. That's why you will notice that multi-nationals do not advertise like that. They use emotion. Attempting to combat emotive adverts for junk like Coca-Cola with reasoned appeals to eat sensibly is (to steal a phrase) "like trying to fight a ghost with a baseball bat".

Third - targeting. It's always a dead giveaway when these agencies advertise on Morning Ireland. Let's be honest, I would guess that the majority of parents who need this advice on childhood obesity are not listening to Morning Ireland. Yet Safe Food will buy slots there every time, slots that are the most expensive on Irish radio. Why?

Bottom line is that safefood is a classic government agency trying to grow by expanding its remit into all sorts of areas that it shouldn't be in, and shows every sign of being run as a benefit for irish advertising agencies and media buyers.

IvyTheTerrible

Irish Steve wrote: »

It's nothing like as simplistic as it's being presented.

Part of the problem is that the culture has changed, and it's not deemed "safe" for kids to play outdoors any more, and in some areas, it might be safe, but there's no open spaces for the kids to play safely on.

Part of the problem is that it's not deemed "safe" for kids to walk a mile to school, or there's not enough time for them to walk, so the car is a "time saver". Yeah!

Part of the problem is that the roads are too darn dangerous for kids to be using them on bikes, so they don't get the same exercise in that area that they used to.

Part of the problem is that mum is not a house maker any more, she has to work to pay the bills, so pre prepared meals, canned drinks and snack foods are the norm, and they are loaded with "extra" like added sugar and salt that are no help to a balanced diet. In some respects, a sugar tax might not be such a bad idea, if it means that people get to know what is really bad in terms of the calorie content. It might be easier for the mum and the kids to pick up a can rather than for someone to make a glass of squash up from the concentrate and then add the water to it, the calorie difference is massive.

Part of the problem is that schools don't have time or facilities for "physical exercise" of any sort, no gym, no games, and in some cases, no competitive sports, as "losing might traumatise the child".

Part of the problem is things like console games, Play stations and the like, that encourage solo sedentary activity, so no movement, or interaction with others.

When these are all added together, there have been a lot of undesirable changes that have all combined to put modern families under huge pressure in comparison to the way things were, and while I'm not exactly stone age, my childhood was a long time ago.

Just on the "mum works" thing, that's not good enough, tbh. My mother worked full time, had four kids, and we ALWAYS ate homemade food. Sweets were only allowed on Sundays, and we only had fizzy drinks at Christmas.

Dravokivich

Irish Steve wrote: »

It's nothing like as simplistic as it's being presented.

Part of the problem is that the culture has changed, and it's not deemed "safe" for kids to play outdoors any more, and in some areas, it might be safe, but there's no open spaces for the kids to play safely on.

Part of the problem is that it's not deemed "safe" for kids to walk a mile to school, or there's not enough time for them to walk, so the car is a "time saver". Yeah!

Part of the problem is that the roads are too darn dangerous for kids to be using them on bikes, so they don't get the same exercise in that area that they used to.

Part of the problem is that mum is not a house maker any more, she has to work to pay the bills, so pre prepared meals, canned drinks and snack foods are the norm, and they are loaded with "extra" like added sugar and salt that are no help to a balanced diet. In some respects, a sugar tax might not be such a bad idea, if it means that people get to know what is really bad in terms of the calorie content. It might be easier for the mum and the kids to pick up a can rather than for someone to make a glass of squash up from the concentrate and then add the water to it, the calorie difference is massive.

Part of the problem is that schools don't have time or facilities for "physical exercise" of any sort, no gym, no games, and in some cases, no competitive sports, as "losing might traumatise the child".

Part of the problem is things like console games, Play stations and the like, that encourage solo sedentary activity, so no movement, or interaction with others.

When these are all added together, there have been a lot of undesirable changes that have all combined to put modern families under huge pressure in comparison to the way things were, and while I'm not exactly stone age, my childhood was a long time ago.

A lot of the points you presented are just as "simplistic."

A parent may bring their kid to school in such a manner if it's not a waste of time to double back and walk home to get a car, so they can head on in to work themselves.

The issue with mum working and not being able to put together a proper meal is a load of crap too. My girlfriend and I work full time and have no issue cooking and eating decent enough meals in the evening. This won't change much with the kid either. This is what people need to understand and why it's the focus of the advert.

Games consoles don't encourage people to constantly sit still in one place. It's an affect not a cause. The cause would be due to not monitoring time playing on it. It's no different to sitting still by the TV watching cartoons during the weekend or playing on a keyboard/piano. Should we give out about music lessons as well then?

artvandelay48

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

Do you also feel insulted by drink driving ads?

Drink driving ads is the nanny state gone mad!



:rolleyes:

artvandelay48

artvandelay48 wrote: »

Drink driving ads is the nanny state gone mad!



:rolleyes:

People know that drink driving is both illegal and wrong they do not need a TV ad to tell them that. Do you know what stops boy races from speeding? growing up and getting sense, not a TV ad telling them to stop.

I am not saying there is not a problem with children sometimes being over weight, however it is a very complex problem and wont be solved by simplistic ads telling parent to give a smaller portion to their children.

Alf Veedersane

mariaalice wrote: »

I am not saying there is not a problem with children sometimes being over weight, however it is a very complex problem and wont be solved by simplistic ads telling parent to give smaller portion to their children.

Your argument has changed from the ad being insulting to parents and being indicative of nanny state interference to it being a complex problem that won't be solved by simple means.

Neyite

Sometimes its really an uphill struggle to stop people from force-feeding your kids crap food. Not once has my toddler been offered a healthier snack in a certain relatives home instead of sweets, despite having rice cakes, cheese, yoghurts, and fruit there. And then I'm the Hard Mammy if I don't let him have said sweet, when normally he skips with excitement when he gets cheese or a yoghurt.

Or adding sugar to his meals. WTF?? he does not NEED maple syrup in his pancakes, or mi-wadi in his water or sugar in his Weetabix. But still they try. Then they try and badger him to eat his dinner when he knows there is loads more sweet crap in a certain cupboard if he holds out and throws a tantrum.

And, when I handle the tantrum the correct way, by not giving in, I get overruled. :rolleyes:

I genuinely don't understand how fruit, yoghurts and cheese are some sort of penance-food to some people.

Nemeses

don't dis the cheese...

Cheese is awesome...

Maybe I am getting this all wrong, maybe it is more difficult to have a small child or toddler today than even 20 years ago, my children are gown up, however I still think the ads are a bit patronising or something could be just me though.

Dravokivich

mariaalice wrote: »

Maybe I am getting this all wrong, maybe it is more difficult to have a small child or toddler today than even 20 years ago, my children are gown up, however I still think the ads are a bit patronising or something could be just me though.

The adverts may be a bit short on the information we need people to know, but there's only so much you can put into a 30/40 second sound bite. Things always sound harsher when put forward with less words and a definitive tone in the speech too. It's not so much that it's more difficult to raise kids these days, a lot of people have just gotten lazy.

Pumpkinseeds

I think a lot of childhood and possibly adult obesity is as a result not only of portion size. I was born in the 70's and growing up then, convenience foods didn't really exist as such. We had home cooked food every day. Mostly it was potatoes and veg with a bit of meat, fish or chicken for dinner, toast or weetabix for breakfast and we took sandwiches and fruit to school in Primary school.

Nowadays there's a trend towards convenience foods which tend to be fairly high in sugar, salt and fat content, as well as being covered in breadcrumbs. I've seen quite a few young lads of primary school age who have larger boobs than many women that I know.

Good food choices, portion control and exercise are what's needed. Although I know that for a lot of families struggling on low incomes fresh fruit, veg and meat are often out of their price range and they often have to use chips and nuggets etc for financial reasons.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Muise...

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Good food choices, portion control and exercise are what's needed. Although I know that for a lot of families struggling on low incomes fresh fruit, veg and meat are often out of their price range and they often have to use chips and nuggets etc for financial reasons.

Not true, but it takes time to cook healthy meal from scratch, time that people swear they don't have because they spend it passively, doing things that they'd rather do.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

The adverts may be a bit short on the information we need people to know, but there's only so much you can put into a 30/40 second sound bite. Things always sound harsher when put forward with less words and a definitive tone in the speech too. It's not so much that it's more difficult to raise kids these days, a lot of people have just gotten lazy.

I still maintain the adverts are pointless and a waste of money. Of course they give people a great feeling of self-righteousness (evident on this thread) which might explain why they run them on Morning Ireland.

The comparison with drink driving is illuminating. Drink driving is illegal, and enforcement is real. Drink drive and you won't be driving for 12 months. Food on the other hand - nothing. No fat tax. No tax on fizzy drinks. No tax on sugary or junk foods. Apparently something like that would be interfering with the free market. And we can't have that.

The government chooses to spend it's time and effort on pointless advertising campaigns rather than actually doing something about a problem.

runawaybishop

Irish Steve wrote: »

It's nothing like as simplistic as it's being presented.

Part of the problem is that the culture has changed, and it's not deemed "safe" for kids to play outdoors any more, and in some areas, it might be safe, but there's no open spaces for the kids to play safely on.

Part of the problem is that it's not deemed "safe" for kids to walk a mile to school, or there's not enough time for them to walk, so the car is a "time saver". Yeah!

Part of the problem is that the roads are too darn dangerous for kids to be using them on bikes, so they don't get the same exercise in that area that they used to.

Part of the problem is that mum is not a house maker any more, she has to work to pay the bills, so pre prepared meals, canned drinks and snack foods are the norm, and they are loaded with "extra" like added sugar and salt that are no help to a balanced diet. In some respects, a sugar tax might not be such a bad idea, if it means that people get to know what is really bad in terms of the calorie content. It might be easier for the mum and the kids to pick up a can rather than for someone to make a glass of squash up from the concentrate and then add the water to it, the calorie difference is massive.

Part of the problem is that schools don't have time or facilities for "physical exercise" of any sort, no gym, no games, and in some cases, no competitive sports, as "losing might traumatise the child".

Part of the problem is things like console games, Play stations and the like, that encourage solo sedentary activity, so no movement, or interaction with others.

When these are all added together, there have been a lot of undesirable changes that have all combined to put modern families under huge pressure in comparison to the way things were, and while I'm not exactly stone age, my childhood was a long time ago.

Exercise is only a small part of it. You cannot out-train a bad diet. Kids are fat because their parents feed them too much poor quality food, not because they have an xbox. Parents cannot abrogate responsibility for their overweight children - they are responsible for their health.

homemadecider

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Your argument has changed from the ad being insulting to parents and being indicative of nanny state interference to it being a complex problem that won't be solved by simple means.

Nothing to do with fat kids at all, but I just got your username. Thought it was just a strange name until now, duh!

Dravokivich

Deleted User wrote: »

I still maintain the adverts are pointless and a waste of money. Of course they give people a great feeling of self-righteousness (evident on this thread) which might explain why they run them on Morning Ireland.

The comparison with drink driving is illuminating. Drink driving is illegal, and enforcement is real. Drink drive and you won't be driving for 12 months. Food on the other hand - nothing. No fat tax. No tax on fizzy drinks. No tax on sugary or junk foods. Apparently something like that would be interfering with the free market. And we can't have that.

The government choose to spend it's time and effort on pointless advertising campaigns rather than actually doing something about a problem.

They aren't solely run on Morning Ireland, so I am starting to expect your gripe is with a whole host of things. I haven't got the slightest idea whatever the hell Morning Ireland is.

However I've heard one of their ads and feel the production was rather quickly hashed out. The people it's aimed at aren't going to pay a blind bit of notice to it.

I was under the impression though, that this thread was primarily about questioning the need for these in the first place? It's quite clear to me that it is needed as there is a lot of arrogance around dietary needs, especially for children. The method on how it's done is well and truly up for question as currently it's rather ineffective. You don't tell someone how to do something, by telling them something needs to be done without any further proper information. And that's the short straw with'em as far as I can see.

Instead of shutting it down, we should be arguing for it to be better presented.

vitani

Neyite wrote: »

Sometimes its really an uphill struggle to stop people from force-feeding your kids crap food. Not once has my toddler been offered a healthier snack in a certain relatives home instead of sweets, despite having rice cakes, cheese, yoghurts, and fruit there. And then I'm the Hard Mammy if I don't let him have said sweet, when normally he skips with excitement when he gets cheese or a yoghurt.

Or adding sugar to his meals. WTF?? he does not NEED maple syrup in his pancakes, or mi-wadi in his water or sugar in his Weetabix. But still they try. Then they try and badger him to eat his dinner when he knows there is loads more sweet crap in a certain cupboard if he holds out and throws a tantrum.

And, when I handle the tantrum the correct way, by not giving in, I get overruled. :rolleyes:

I genuinely don't understand how fruit, yoghurts and cheese are some sort of penance-food to some people.

Can I join your club?

I get fed up of being told I'm mean or that I'm depriving my child because I don't buy regular junk food for her. She gets the odd sweet or bit of chocolate, but it's not a part of her day to day diet and she only drinks water or milk. She certainly doesn't feel deprived - she loves apples and yogurts, and she's a fiend for vegetables.

I know she's going to 'discover' the existence of sweets and other rubbish in the future, and when she does, I have no intention of banning them, but they'll be given to her in moderation.

Neyite

vitani wrote: »

Can I join your club?

I get fed up of being told I'm mean or that I'm depriving my child because I don't buy regular junk food for her. She gets the odd sweet or bit of chocolate, but it's not a part of her day to day diet and she only drinks water or milk. She certainly doesn't feel deprived - she loves apples and yogurts, and she's a fiend for vegetables.

I know she's going to 'discover' the existence of sweets and other rubbish in the future, and when she does, I have no intention of banning them, but they'll be given to her in moderation.

The Evil Mammy Club. I like it. Mwah hahahahaha!!!

Irish Steve

runawaybishop wrote: »

Exercise is only a small part of it. You cannot out-train a bad diet. Kids are fat because their parents feed them too much poor quality food, not because they have an xbox. Parents cannot abrogate responsibility for their overweight children - they are responsible for their health.

I don't recall disputing that. I'm sitting here looking at my daughter and her 2 lovely children, none of whom are overweight, or undertall, or "cuddly", or any of the other reasons given as excuses for obesity. The word that seems to keep coming up in a lot of the threads around here is responsible.

It's true about overweight kids, or inappropriate spending by semi states, or drink driving, or a lot of the other issues that seem to be causing a lot of upset to a lot of people.

Let's call a spade a spade, in 99% of cases fat kids are caused by parents that are not responsible.

Bad government happens because voters are not responsible for calling the people at the top to account, etc etc.

We already have way too many ways in which the Government is nanny state in areas where people should be responsible.

Yes, a sugar tax might help, but I don't see significant numbers of people giving up smoking because they can't smoke in a lot of places now.

There are problems with a binge drink culture, and changing the hours that off licences are open isn't going to change that any time soon.

Perhaps what's needed is some regulation on "extra" sugar in some products, prohibiting the manufacturers from putting it in to the product in the first place.

Perhaps tobacco needs to be banned, I'm not aware of any long term beneficial uses of the stuff.

Going back to junk food, what's also needed is for parents to be more aware of what the are feeding to the kids, and in that respect, the ads at the moment are not ideal, cans of drink that are massively loaded with sugar are more damaging than crisps and biscuits. Maybe the ingredient list needs to be more prominent, so that it can be read without a magnifying glass.

In some cases, look at the parents, are they fat? If they are, then chances are, they never learnt about what makes a sensible and balanced diet from their parents.

The lack of exercise may well be one of a number of factors in making a bad situation worse. Maybe the absence of nutritious meals at school at lunch time is a factor, a lot of the kids end up taking junk food because it's easy to throw a few packets of pre packed whatever into the box, rather than prepare things that are nutritionally valid.

We had a family on our estate, time to take kids to school in car, 10 minutes, because of the numbers of cars going in and out of the drop off area. Time to walk the kids to school, 5 minutes, or less, because there's a much quicker route that is not accessible by car. The kids were put in the car every day. That's an irresponsible parent.

The issues are, do public services ads work, whether its stop smoking, obesity or speeding, I don't think they do.

The ads on obesity, as people have said some people don't care they know full well what they should be feeding their children but cant or wont do it.

The ads don't addressee complex changes in culture and society that have take place over the past 50 years that are a huge part of the problem.

Pumpkinseeds

Muise... wrote: »

Not true, but it takes time to cook healthy meal from scratch, time that people swear they don't have because they spend it passively, doing things that they'd rather do.

I have to disagree with you. It's far cheaper for a family on a low income to buy a bag of frozen chips and chicken nuggets/fish fingers etc than it is for them to buy potatoes and other fresh veg. If a family or an adult is trying to stretch a low income to cover all their outgoings buying convenience foods like that is probably going to be most affordable option for them. Time will be a big factor for a lot of people, but without doubt, economics plays a big part for a lot of people.

It's a lot cheaper to have fish fingers and chips than to have fresh cod, vegetables and potatoes

FizzleSticks

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Oh she/he's a great eater, we've never had any trouble from him/her"
Kids are so often praised for eating. Traditionally parents have trouble getting kids to eat right, so when a child clears their plate it's seen as success. When the child is getting fat and is still asking for seconds and thirds at dinner, it's seen as a great thing that there's no trouble in getting those greens into them, but it's far less common for people to see it and say "hey, wait, that child is actually eating too much, and we're encouraging it". So they watch the child grow and say things like "yes he's got a very healthy appetite, just can get enough. He's only five but already wearing 7 year old clothes, he's going to grow up to be big and strong".

mariaalice wrote: »

The issues are, do public services ads work, whether its stop smoking, obesity or speeding, I don't think they do.

The ads on obesity, as people have said some people don't care they know full well what they should be feeding their children but cant or wont do it.

The ads don't addressee complex changes in culture and society that have take place over the past 50 years that are a huge part of the problem.

Ok, so the ads don't address complex changes in culture. What's that got to do with anything? They're a help. They point out something that a lot of parents might not be thinking of.

Considering how insulted you were originally mariaalice, surely it's likely that other parents were insulted enough that it made them take a look at their children's nutrition. It got your attention; that must be a sign that it's caught the attention of parents with young children too. Honestly, I think the "say no in the supermarket once and it's a lot easier to say no at home, when the junk isn't sitting in the press" thing is quite clever and simple, something a lot of people could take on board. Even for people without children, it's a nice reminder to say no to ourselves in the shop so that we don't have to battle temptation at home.

SeaDaily

mariaalice wrote: »

The ads don't addressee complex changes in culture and society that have take place over the past 50 years that are a huge part of the problem.

You're making a non-point here. Obviously the ads cannot fully address the problem as they are only 40 seconds long! However, how you can perceive these ads as a bad thing is totally beyond me. They are most certainly a step in the right direction in that they are raising awareness of the issue at hand.

Basically what you are saying is that because the ads cannot fully solve the problem immediately that should not be there at all. Using this logic you could then say you shouldn't ever fix anything unless it can be fixed with immediate effect..

Sir Arthur Daley

The most important thing to remember about food being safe is that its cooked properly and in date.

SeaDaily

WikiHow wrote: »

The most important thing to remember about food being safe is that its cooked properly and in date.

Thanks for that. Has nothing to do with this thread though.

SeaDaily

SeaDaily wrote: »

You're making a non-point here. Obviously the ads cannot fully address the problem as they are only 40 seconds long! However, how you can perceive these ads as a bad thing is totally beyond me. They are most certainly a step in the right direction in that they are raising awareness of the issue at hand.

Basically what you are saying is that because the ads cannot fully solve the problem immediately that should not be there at all. Using this logic you could then say you shouldn't ever fix anything unless it can be fixed with immediate effect..

I also feel that they give a false sense of something important being done about the issue and a false sense of simple fixes for complex issues. I am not against all such ads but I wouldn't think those ads are really that good, but as I said maybe I am wrong and there really are lots of parents with no clue about how to feed their child despite the wealth of information out there.

I think one of the solation's is the public health nurse weighing the child and having a word with the parents, the child should not be referred to dictations or the like, it needs a friendly but firm no nonsense approach from the public health nurse along with maybe a parenting course if the problem is very bad.