Reilly: More shops need to stop selling sweets and chocolates at checkouts

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

A MOVE BY Tesco to stop selling sweets and chocolates at shop checkouts has been welcomed by government.
Minister for Health James Reilly has said that he hopes it is first step towards other shops taking similar steps.
“The retail sector can play an important role in building a healthier Ireland, not least through supporting our efforts to address the consumption of top shelf food products, such as sweets and chocolate, but in supporting healthier diets overall,” Reilly said in a statement.

Tesco trying to pre-empt a fat/sugar tax?

Minister for "Health" James Reilly needs to stop thinking of ways to tax the fatties and smokers out of the market and concentrate on hospital waiting lists, nutrition and fitness in schools and generally support our population to live healthier lifestyles overall.

**** off state nannyism!!!

Dravokivich

Why not attack sweet shops, with the same aggression the head shops got dealt with?

syklops

There's no mention of tax in the article.

Daith

Why not educate children in schools and turn PE into Health Science and PE?

I'm going to grab a snickers from a vending machine in work. Should offices remove vending machines too as I can't decide for myself anymore.

BBJBIG

This Idiot will soon have us stop breathin the fresh air ... cos it's bad for us ...

DamagedTrax

that unhealthy looking wannabe dick(tator) needs to STFU and worry about his own obesity levels instead of trying to run peoples lives for them.

oak5548

Theyre not completely removing them from shops. They're placed by the counters for a reason, because people see them and think "ah sure why not" even though they had no plans what soever to buy them.

It makes a bit of sense.

Muise...

I'd say anyone who has gone shopping with small children in tow will be glad of this.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

In fairness, it must be hard to drag kids around a shop avoiding the aisle with chocolates, or at least dragging them down it fast, only to have to then queue in Willy Wonka lane for ten minutes just to pay for your groceries.

Dravokivich

Daith wrote: »

Why not educate children in schools and turn PE into Health Science and PE?

I'm going to grab a snickers from a vending machine in work. Should offices remove vending machines too as I can't decide for myself anymore.

You mean to say, there's no choice of what you want to get in the vending machine? :eek:

kylith

More parents need to learn how to say no to their children.

castletownman

Gone are the days when parents could simply said "no" to their children.

Over-indulgence of children is the biggest contributory factor to childhood obesity imo.

Daith

Dravokivich wrote: »

You mean to say, there's no choice of what you want to get in the vending machine? :eek:

A Snickers :P

But just in case one of the girls brings in her kid and the kid wants chocolate too!

DamagedTrax

oak5548 wrote: »

Theyre not completely removing them from shops. They're placed by the counters for a reason, because people see them and think "ah sure why not" even though they had no plans what soever to buy them.

It makes a bit of sense.

it would make more sense for parents to teach their kids the meaning of 'no'.

Boom_Bap

Daith wrote: »

Why not educate children in schools and turn PE into Health Science and PE?

I'm going to grab a snickers from a vending machine in work. Should offices remove vending machines too as I can't decide for myself anymore.

There is education in schools for this. The Food Dudes visit schools giving advise on healthy eating.

DubDani

What about teaching kids?

I have two small daughters and they know that a "No" means actually no. At this point they don't even ask anymore if they can have one, be it at the checkout or in the sweet aisle. When did parents stop being a parent and teaching their kids the meaning of the word "No"?

Muise...

castletownman wrote: »

Gone are the days when parents could simply said "no" to their children.

Over-indulgence of children is the biggest contributory factor to childhood obesity imo.

Not a parent, but from experience in supermarket queues, parents saying 'no' to children who are cynically targetted by these displays, leads to ear-splitting tantrums that aren't fair on anyone.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

syklops wrote: »

There's no mention of tax in the article.

So what?!?

Reilly sought 20% tax on sugary drinks in Budget, records show.

Daith

Muise... wrote: »

Not a parent, but from experience in supermarket queues, parents saying 'no' to children who are cynically targetted by these displays, leads to ear-splitting tantrums that aren't fair on anyone.

Fine. Remove the chocolate from the tills but in return parents can't bring kids who are prone to screaming on long haul flights anymore.

DamagedTrax

Muise... wrote: »

Not a parent, but from experience in supermarket queues, parents saying 'no' to children who are cynically targetted by these displays, leads to ear-splitting tantrums that aren't fair on anyone.

so sweeping the problem under the carpet (or down the back of the shop) is the answer?

parents need to say no. i'd rather listen to a screaming kid not getting their own way then look at an obese child stuffing his/her face with chocolate and sweets.

long term thinking is needed, not short term placation.

Mental Mickey

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Tesco trying to pre-empt a fat/sugar tax?

Minister for "Health" James Reilly needs to stop thinking of ways to tax the fatties and smokers out of the market and concentrate on hospital waiting lists, nutrition and fitness in schools and generally support our population to live healthier lifestyles overall.

**** off state nannyism!!!

**** off Reilly, you fat c**t.

The_B_Man

Its not just the children that are being targeted.
I was in the shops the other day and this woman in front of me, who was massive in fairness, was waiting on the person in front to be rung up. While waiting, her eyes started to wander and she saw the sweets on one side of her. She grabbed a bar of chocolate and then looked on the other side. She saw a bag of sweets.
She then asked the cashier to do a price check on them and then was like "Ah sure they're here now, give me both".

I imagine she went home and polished them both off not too long afterwards. I was watching her, as she was standing right in front of me, and her eyes didnt start to wander until she finished unloading her trolley, and there was a slight delay with the customer in front. By the looks of her, I'd say she's been in this situation many times before!

kneemos

Who can afford to buy them anyway?Have you seen the price of a poxy chocolate bar lately.

super_furry

How long has it been since we've had a Minister of Health that at least looks healthy?

SEPT 23 1989

all products will be packaged in white with a black text description on them

products will remain locked behind glass and consumer will use their swipe cards to access products

consumer will be allocated a calorie and sugar allowance per month from the State

Davarus Walrus

Mental Mickey wrote: »

**** off Reilly, you fat c**t.

Pipe down with your faux online outrage. Have a lollipop or something.

jack of all

DubDani wrote: »

What about teaching kids?

I have two small daughters and they know that a "No" means actually no. At this point they don't even ask anymore if they can have one, be it at the checkout or in the sweet aisle. When did parents stop being a parent and teaching their kids the meaning of the word "No"?

+1 on the above sentiments; I have 3 young children and they generally know that I won't purchase sweets when in the supermarket and I will resist all pester power! However with younger children (I'm thinking 4 years and under) it can be difficult, and I think it's no harm to have sweets located away from tills. By the time you navigate around the shop with children in tow they can become restless at the checkout- especially if there's a long queue. If I want to purchase sweets I'll go and look for the aisle plus I don't want to see some other harassed parent trying to deal with a child that maybe having a moment at the till and decides they must have sweets!

kylith

The_B_Man wrote: »

Its not just the children that are being targeted.
I was in the shops the other day and this woman in front of me, who was massive in fairness, was waiting on the person in front to be rung up. While waiting, her eyes started to wander and she saw the sweets on one side of her. She grabbed a bar of chocolate and then looked on the other side. She saw a bag of sweets.
She then asked the cashier to do a price check on them and then was like "Ah sure they're here now, give me both".

I imagine she went home and polished them both off not too long afterwards. I was watching her, as she was standing right in front of me, and her eyes didnt start to wander until she finished unloading her trolley, and there was a slight delay with the customer in front. By the looks of her, I'd say she's been in this situation many times before!

Which is why parents need to learn to say no to their kids. Children who don't get a 'treat' at the tills all the time are less likely to grow into adults who buy themselves a 'treat' at the till.

Caliden

castletownman wrote: »

Gone are the days when parents could simply said "no" to their children.

Over-indulgence of children is the biggest contributory factor to childhood obesity imo.

These are Celtic Tiger parents, they've never heard the word 'no' in their life.

"Can I have a 100% mortgage?" "Sure, no problem!"

DamagedTrax

when we were younger, dad brought us a packet of sweets or chocolate on a friday evening after work. on a sunday we probably got a sweet dessert. we all grew up healthy and fit and we'd rather eat savoury than sweet.

its not hard to do. i did it myself with my son, now he's unbelievably fit, into every sport and prefers not to eat crap.

Call Me Jimmy

kylith wrote: »

Which is why parents need to learn to say no to their kids. Children who don't get a 'treat' at the tills all the time are less likely to grow into adults who buy themselves a 'treat' at the till.

This is true. I was born n' raised on stinger bars and now I'm a mess.

Donkey Oaty

Don't think it's been mentioned so far on here or in the media regarding this particular story, but Superquinn had "Sweets-free" checkouts as far back as the 1980s.

Pumpkinseeds

We were told 'no' a lot when we were kids. We had our pocket money on a Friday and we could buy what we liked with that. Thursday nights my parents would buy 4 packets of Tayto and 4 small bars of chocolate, we're a family of 4. That was the only junk we got for the week.

There was no question of being pacified in shops with sweets etc and there were never any multipacks of crisps or sweets at home, other than Christmas. Parents need to learn to say no to their kids, if they can't discipline a child enough to not have a tantrum every time they're told no, then they really need some parenting lessons.

Muise...

DamagedTrax wrote: »

so sweeping the problem under the carpet (or down the back of the shop) is the answer?

parents need to say no. i'd rather listen to a screaming kid not getting their own way then look at an obese child stuffing his/her face with chocolate and sweets.

long term thinking is needed, not short term placation.

Really? You can avert your eyes from an obese child if it offends you, but you can't avert your ears from a toddler having a tantrum and slowing down the progress of its stressed parent going through the check-out with the poor cashiers ears ringing for the nth time that day.

YFlyer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

when we were younger, dad brought us a packet of sweets or chocolate on a friday evening after work. on a sunday we probably got a sweet dessert. we all grew up healthy and fit and we'd rather eat savoury than sweet.

You lucky B*stard

Our mother divided a Mars bar between 3 of us.

quickbeam

Never mind the kids. I appreciate having the temptation taken away from myself.

Tiddlypeeps

I don't like nanny state legislation over this type of thing, but this wasn't legislated for so I have no idea why the state is being blamed for it. The minister was just commending Tesco on their decision. Unless I've totally missed something this was a decision made by Tesco because it is what a large portion of their customers want. Parents having an easier time at the tills means they are more likely to shop their in future. I see no problem with this.

The fatty food tax is a different topic and is entirely unrelated. I am totally against it and hope it never happens, but it has nothing to do with the OP.

DamagedTrax

Muise... wrote: »

Really? You can avert your eyes from an obese child if it offends you, but you can't avert your ears from a toddler having a tantrum and slowing down the progress of its stressed parent going through the check-out with the poor cashiers ears ringing for the nth time that day.

well you really missed the deeper message in that post, didnt you :P

my point is that a screaming child is better than a fat obese one. eventually the screaming child will learn, keep feeding the fatty and they only get fatter. if a screaming child offends your ears then id advise never having kids, its part of the territory. obesity on the other hand, should not be.

and yes, ive been there with my own kid and told him "no", because of that little word i dont have a kid that acts like a junkie with sugar and can fit into the right size clothes for his height/build.

Temptamperu

Daith wrote: »

Why not educate children in schools and turn PE into Health Science and PE?

I'm going to grab a snickers from a vending machine in work. Should offices remove vending machines too as I can't decide for myself anymore.

Every second year student gets nutritional education in science or home ec. Its been this way since i was in school.

Greenmachine

Temptamperu wrote: »

Every second year student gets nutritional education in science or home ec. Its been this way since i was in school.

No nutrition info in science when I was in school.

Muise...

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well you really missed the deeper message in that post, didnt you :P

my point is that a screaming child is better than a fat obese one. eventually the screaming child will learn, keep feeding the fatty and they only get fatter. if a screaming child offends your ears then id advise never having kids, its part of the territory. obesity on the other hand, should not be.

and yes, ive been there with my own kid and told him "no", because of that little word i dont have a kid that acts like a junkie with sugar and can fit into the right size clothes for his height/build.

I don't disagree with parents keeping their children on a healthy diet - of course not. And I've taken care of the not having kids bit. But while your children have gotten the hang of not getting their way at the till, others haven't and there will always be a fresh supply of impressionable kids to fall for the placement of sweets at the till. Obesity is another issue entirely to harassed parents, cashiers and shoppers.

DamagedTrax

Muise... wrote: »

I don't disagree with parents keeping their children on a healthy diet - of course not. And I've taken care of the not having kids bit. But while your children have gotten the hang of not getting their way at the till, others haven't and there will always be a fresh supply of impressionable kids to fall for the placement of sweets at the till. Obesity is another issue entirely to harassed parents, cashiers and shoppers.

but if the parents decide to go to the newsagent instead of tesco/eurospar/wherever they're gonna face the same problem anyway.

i just think its a move to placate rather than a push to educate.

that rhymed

catallus

kneemos wrote: »

Who can afford to buy them anyway?Have you seen the price of a poxy chocolate bar lately.

Its bloody outrageous! Exploitation and price-gouging.

The bastards.

Thank you very much, Enda Kenny, his government allow this scandalous situation, and all I want is a focking bourneville and not to be robbed blind. To the streets!

DamagedTrax

catallus wrote: »

all I want is a focking bourneville

said nobody, ever.

CarrickMcJoe

super_furry wrote: »

How long has it been since we've had a Minister of Health that at least looks healthy?

Mary Harney

super_furry

I said healthy, not devastatingly sexy.

CarrickMcJoe

super_furry wrote: »

I said healthy, not devastatingly sexy.

:D:D:D

Phoebas

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

**** off state nannyism!!!

When did Tesco take on the running of the state?

Muise...

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but if the parents decide to go to the newsagent instead of tesco/eurospar/wherever they're gonna face the same problem anyway.

i just think its a move to placate rather than a push to educate.

that rhymed

If it rhymes, it must be true!

the groutch

So more of the usual then
Poor parenting and the parents blaming the shops rather than themselves
Shop caves to pressure, everyone else suffers.

imme

This is just common sense. Simple as.

Your nanny statism op would be to ban soft drinks, multi pack mega pack crisps, sugary deserts, chocolate, heavily salted cinema popcorn buckets, fast food.