I remember most children going to the tuck shop (in the 90s), and there were only a few fat kids in each year. We did do a LOT more sports than my child currently does, in school time and after school teams etc. We had Games for the last hour of the day Monday, Wednesday, Friday, half an hour of PE, plus a half an hour of swimming, plus all the after school teams. My child has half an hour of PE twice a week, but the school day is much shorter.
The fact that that chocolate is cheaper doesn't mean its the problem. They eat about 1/3 more chocolate in Switzerland than we do here but their obesity level is about half ours.
I've seen some data tonight that suggests there is less between the two populations than that. (22% more consumption and Lausanne University Hospital study shows increasing obesity)
Obesity rates in Switzerland may be considerably underestimated, particularly among elderly women, new research findings suggest.
A study comparing Body Mass Index (BMI) and waist circumference measurements among the Lausanne population recently found large discrepancies in obesity calculations.
What a strange argument. The proposal is not about stopping children consuming chocolate full stop but about stopping schools encouraging unhealthy eating by having the products on site.
The product may be 'on site' but they can only be bought and consumed at break times.
They don't sell cigarettes in schools either, and it's for a good reason apart from the fact the age has only been raised from 16 recently.
Which is exactly my point, schools don't sell cigs but children still smoke in school so how will banning chocolates and sweets stop children eating them in school.
How is banning the selling of chocolates and sweets encouraging healthy eating unless schools replace them with an alternative food that will appeal to children
I've seen some data tonight that suggests there is less between the two populations than that. (22% more consumption and Lausanne University Hospital study shows increasing obesity)
Obesity records in general are all a mixture of medical evidence, self reporting and guess work so they could all be underestimates, considering most people underreport when asked their weight.
I can't comment on what you're referring to about consumption and obesity because I can't find it to read it.
Kellogg's Frosties to be outlawed! lol, do you smoke or drink alcohol? tut, tut from Milliband! yet more garbage to come out of the labour camp! remember people: you are not allowed to make choices for yourselves they know what's best for you, disgraceful!!
I am awaiting the arrival of the "outraged" Tory supporters from the other thread,
(some of them got quite hysterical in the other thread, almost fighting amongst themselves to be more outraged)
to come rushing into this one expressing their outrage at the 'nanny state' Tories,
This is more to do with the government stamping its authority on young people early to imply "you do as your told" than them actually giving a damn about peoples health (which if money is involved somehow, they don't)
It'll just mean small shops near schools will see a slight rise in business during lunch hour
My kids used to take dinner money to school and like all kids, they didn't always spend it wisely on a good healthy lunch and not blow it on unhealthy snacky crap either at school or en route to it.
I for one don't have a problem with schools not offering poor choices on site. I don't see that as authoritarian. I'd consider banning certain foods from being consumed on site as authoritarian but not the refusal to sell them onsite.
I'd rather schools didn't offer up so many different lunch options and went back to the set lunch single menu approach that I grew up with. That's gotta be cheaper for the school and if always delivered on a fixed rotational pattern (fish on a Friday that kinda thing) it gives us parents a better chance of getting the balance of the evening meals we prepare right. I lost count of the number of times my kids would come home, ask what's for tea only to complain they'd ate pretty much the same thing for lunch. Knowing their options (once inside the school) were restricted would have made that a whole lot easier to plan around as would some kind of confirmation of how regularly the kids were electing to take up the school option.
It's not that I don't trust my kids - it's simply that given the choice we'd be a bit naive to think that kids won't act like kids and go with the "nice" rather than "healthy" option, particularly when in a group of mates.
Between 2005 and 2013 nutrition and food guidelines were introduced for all state schools, and school vending machines were no longer allowed to sell sweets, crisps or fizzy drinks. All that's happening now is that Academies and Free Schools are having those same guidelines applied.
Between 2005 and 2013 nutrition and food guidelines were introduced for all state schools, and school vending machines were no longer allowed to sell sweets, crisps or fizzy drinks. All that's happening now is that Academies and Free Schools are having those same guidelines applied.
...so basically a typical DS mountain from molehill style thread.
Who'd have thunk the OP would do such a thing ;-):D
...so basically a typical DS mountain from molehill style thread.
Who'd have thunk the OP would do such a thing ;-):D
Hardly, just talking about a large article from the BBC about chocolate being banned in schools. You'll find it in today's Times as well.
"Tuck shops closed in fight against flab
Chocolate will be banned in all state schools and fruit juice and fatty foods severely restricted from next year as the government tackles the growing problem of childhood obesity."
Between 2005 and 2013 nutrition and food guidelines were introduced for all state schools, and school vending machines were no longer allowed to sell sweets, crisps or fizzy drinks. All that's happening now is that Academies and Free Schools are having those same guidelines applied.
Spoilsport - now you have gone and ruined Jols daily rant..
Hardly, just talking about a large article from the BBC about chocolate being banned in schools. You'll find it in today's Times as well.
"Tuck shops closed in fight against flab
Chocolate will be banned in all state schools and fruit juice and fatty foods severely restricted from next year as the government tackles the growing problem of childhood obesity."
Maybe the Times thinks chocolate doesn't qualify as a "sweet". That's their problem....
What does confectionery include?
• Chocolate and chocolate products, for example: bars of milk, plain or white chocolate; chocolate flakes, buttons or chocolate-filled eggs.
• Chocolate-coated bars.
Strict – and legally binding – nutrition and food guidelines have already been introduced for all state schools, preventing them from selling sweets, crisps or fizzy drinks. All that's happening here is that Academies and Free Schools are now having those same guidelines imposed on them. So now the policy applies to all schools, not just state schools.
The rise in obesity didn't start until the late 70's, so we managed 30+ years after rationing finished without getting obese. How is going back to enforced restriction of meat eggs butter and milk the solution to obesity
Rationing of sweets, chocolate, sugar and meat did not end until the 1950s.
The rules on sugar remain strict: for example confectionery, such as chocolate, sweets and cereal bars, and sugary drinks are not permitted at any time during the school day, and cakes and biscuits can only be provided at lunchtime. We have not changed these requirements, which were introduced as part of the 2007 standards.
It's worth reading the document to understand what changes are being made and why. It appears that most of the changes are aimed at simplifying things for schools, are being driven and managed by a non-governmental standards group, in conjunction with the Children's School Food Trust. Consultation has been sought and the new standards have been tested: 90% of school cooks and 80% of caterers thought the revised standards were easier to understand than the current standards, while 80% of school cooks and caterers thought they would provide more flexibility.
some kids will take sweets and chocolate in schools and sell it to their mates.
So? If you think a "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" attitude is called for bear in mind i've known kids take packets of **** to school to sell for 50p a ciggy.
You wouldn't want to see 20 Bensons on sale in the tuckshop would you?
So? If you think a "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" attitude is called for bear in mind i've known kids take packets of **** to school to sell for 50p a ciggy.
You wouldn't want to see 20 Bensons on sale in the tuckshop would you?
But there's an age limit on smoking ,but there's not for sweets and chocolates but with this evil government in power who knows.
But there's an age limit on smoking ,but there's not for sweets and chocolates but with this evil government in power who knows.
Evil government? Blimey, I didn't realise banning the sale of chocolate in schools was evil.
They've so missed a devilish trick - any half decent capitalist would franchise out all the canteen/dining space to McDonalds and let the schools cash-in. Burgers are perfectly legal so we might as well let the schools turn a profit. They could use the money afterall.
Evil government? Blimey, I didn't realise banning the sale of chocolate in schools was evil.
They've so missed a devilish trick - any half decent capitalist would franchise out all the canteen/dining space to McDonalds and let the schools cash-in. Burgers are perfectly legal so we might as well let the schools turn a profit. They could use the money afterall.
[rolly eyes]
If I had kids I would send them into school sweets and chocolate no one would tell me what I can give my kids.
more people needs make a stand against the against acts like this and not just roll over and do as told.
So, in a nutshell, you'd ignore the health of your kids to make a point.
,i had sweets at school everyday as a kid,it be not hurt me ,It should be up to the parents not anyone else if kids eat streets.
And kids can buy sweets before or after school if they like.
Which is exactly my point, schools don't sell cigs but children still smoke in school so how will banning chocolates and sweets stop children eating them in school.
Nobody has been talking about banning the eating of chocolate and sweets in the schools, but removing them from sale on school grounds. I wouldn't expect schools to sell cigarettes on site either.
How is banning the selling of chocolates and sweets encouraging healthy eating unless schools replace them with an alternative food that will appeal to children
The food is called "school lunches" and details of the choice of fruit and vegetables is contained in a link earlier in the thread.
Comments
Same here, I remember tuck shops well.
They never got taken away from their parents for being overweight.
I've seen some data tonight that suggests there is less between the two populations than that. (22% more consumption and Lausanne University Hospital study shows increasing obesity)
The product may be 'on site' but they can only be bought and consumed at break times.
Which is exactly my point, schools don't sell cigs but children still smoke in school so how will banning chocolates and sweets stop children eating them in school.
How is banning the selling of chocolates and sweets encouraging healthy eating unless schools replace them with an alternative food that will appeal to children
Obesity records in general are all a mixture of medical evidence, self reporting and guess work so they could all be underestimates, considering most people underreport when asked their weight.
I can't comment on what you're referring to about consumption and obesity because I can't find it to read it.
Indeed, anyone remember this thread?,
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1960539&highlight=labour+want+to+ban+sugar&page=3
So glad I remembered it, I am just having a read through it now, I am wonder where the OP is right now?
I am awaiting the arrival of the "outraged" Tory supporters from the other thread,
(some of them got quite hysterical in the other thread, almost fighting amongst themselves to be more outraged)
to come rushing into this one expressing their outrage at the 'nanny state' Tories,
It'll just mean small shops near schools will see a slight rise in business during lunch hour
I for one don't have a problem with schools not offering poor choices on site. I don't see that as authoritarian. I'd consider banning certain foods from being consumed on site as authoritarian but not the refusal to sell them onsite.
I'd rather schools didn't offer up so many different lunch options and went back to the set lunch single menu approach that I grew up with. That's gotta be cheaper for the school and if always delivered on a fixed rotational pattern (fish on a Friday that kinda thing) it gives us parents a better chance of getting the balance of the evening meals we prepare right. I lost count of the number of times my kids would come home, ask what's for tea only to complain they'd ate pretty much the same thing for lunch. Knowing their options (once inside the school) were restricted would have made that a whole lot easier to plan around as would some kind of confirmation of how regularly the kids were electing to take up the school option.
It's not that I don't trust my kids - it's simply that given the choice we'd be a bit naive to think that kids won't act like kids and go with the "nice" rather than "healthy" option, particularly when in a group of mates.
...so basically a typical DS mountain from molehill style thread.
Who'd have thunk the OP would do such a thing ;-):D
Hardly, just talking about a large article from the BBC about chocolate being banned in schools. You'll find it in today's Times as well.
"Tuck shops closed in fight against flab
Chocolate will be banned in all state schools and fruit juice and fatty foods severely restricted from next year as the government tackles the growing problem of childhood obesity."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/child-health/article4121567.ece
Spoilsport - now you have gone and ruined Jols daily rant..
Maybe the Times thinks chocolate doesn't qualify as a "sweet". That's their problem....
Strict – and legally binding – nutrition and food guidelines have already been introduced for all state schools, preventing them from selling sweets, crisps or fizzy drinks. All that's happening here is that Academies and Free Schools are now having those same guidelines imposed on them. So now the policy applies to all schools, not just state schools.
You have an opinion on the Tories? You want to consider sharing that with everyone.
Rationing of sweets, chocolate, sugar and meat did not end until the 1950s.
It's worth reading the document to understand what changes are being made and why. It appears that most of the changes are aimed at simplifying things for schools, are being driven and managed by a non-governmental standards group, in conjunction with the Children's School Food Trust. Consultation has been sought and the new standards have been tested: 90% of school cooks and 80% of caterers thought the revised standards were easier to understand than the current standards, while 80% of school cooks and caterers thought they would provide more flexibility.
So? If you think a "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" attitude is called for bear in mind i've known kids take packets of **** to school to sell for 50p a ciggy.
You wouldn't want to see 20 Bensons on sale in the tuckshop would you?
But there's an age limit on smoking ,but there's not for sweets and chocolates but with this evil government in power who knows.
Evil government? Blimey, I didn't realise banning the sale of chocolate in schools was evil.
They've so missed a devilish trick - any half decent capitalist would franchise out all the canteen/dining space to McDonalds and let the schools cash-in. Burgers are perfectly legal so we might as well let the schools turn a profit. They could use the money afterall.
[rolly eyes]
If I had kids I would send them into school sweets and chocolate no one would tell me what I can give my kids.
more people needs make a stand against the against acts like this and not just roll over and do as told.
So, in a nutshell, you'd ignore the health of your kids to make a point.
,i had sweets at school everyday as a kid,it be not hurt me ,It should be up to the parents not anyone else if kids eat streets.
And kids can buy sweets before or after school if they like.
Nobody has been talking about banning the eating of chocolate and sweets in the schools, but removing them from sale on school grounds. I wouldn't expect schools to sell cigarettes on site either.
The food is called "school lunches" and details of the choice of fruit and vegetables is contained in a link earlier in the thread.
You sound like the old woman who says she has smoked 60 a day and it did her no harm to suggest that smoking is not harmful.