Childhood Obesity Strategy: Not a magic bullet; may be missing a trick

According to the Childhood Obesity Strategy a third of children aged 2-15 are overweight or obese.

Last week the Government launched its long-awaited Childhood Obesity Strategy.  Cue MPs on both sides of the house dismissing the strategy as ineffective, and social media trolls decrying the role of the nanny state and demanding that parents take responsibility for removing junk from their child’s diet, or risk their offspring being taken into care.

I am not going to comment on the document in detail; there are some useful things in it, such as the plans to make healthier food available in public sector workplaces and in schools, and the proposal to update current nutrient profiles in line with the latest evidence.  There is also some truly cringe-worthy stuff about the involvement of health professionals, suggesting, for example, that midwives should be talking to new mothers about weight (because new mothers evidently have nothing else on their minds, and obviously loads of newborns are obese – please read sarcasm into this sentence), and that school nurses should be confident about raising weight issues with children (I can’t think of many things more humiliating for an overweight child than to be forced to have a discussion about weight with the school nurse).  As others have said, more could have been done to enforce tougher sugar targets on manufacturers, and to restrict the availability and targeting of advertising to a young audience.

Childhood Obesity Strategy: What’s Missing?

What does a label like this really mean? What might this food contain instead of sugar? ‘Naturally healthy’ means nothing at all. No wonder families are confused!

My view is that the paper has missed a clear and obvious trick.  It has always been clear to me that childhood obesity is not just about children fed exclusively on junk food and soft drinks.  Yes, there are some children in that situation, particularly in poorer families, and it is a positive step that the Strategy aims to address this.  However, most parents aim to feed their children as healthily as possible within the constraints of their time and budget.  That is why they need honest information, delivered in a clear form, and with consistency.  A busy mumpreneur probably has no time to peruse food labels for hidden nasties, and does not deserve condemnation for not knowing the 60-odd aliases for sugar.

The truth is, sugar, salt and additives are hidden in food with deceptive or no labeling.  This is not necessarily a problem when eating at home; fresh vegetables, meat, fish, eggs, whole grains and nuts require no labels.  But as soon as a social or external element creeps in, the problems begin.  Two situations I have experienced in the past week have highlighted this for me.

Blaming busy parents is, in most cases, neither helpful nor justified.

The Fruits of Experience

Firstly, I was taken out to dinner with friends.  As I avoid sugar, I was fully prepared not to eat dessert.  What I was not prepared for was that there would be nothing on the main course menu that I could eat either.  Everything was either ‘honey-glazed’ or ‘sweet’ (sugar), deep-fried (harmful trans fats) or contained something I avoid for cultural reasons.  I finally chose peri-peri chicken, but even this was sugar-laden, which was not indicated on the menu at all.  This, by the way, was quite a fancy gastro-pub, not a fast-food joint.

Yesterday I was taken out by a friend for bubble tea for the first time.  Being a ‘bubble virgin’  I ordered a tea with 0% sugar.  Now, when I see 0% sugar, I expect it to mean no sugar at all, not 0% added to the considerable amount of sugar already there, which is what I received.  Again, I thought I had made the best possible choice only to find that I had been misled.

Remember that I am a health-conscious person who makes a point of reading food labels and has the time to do so, and these things still happened to me.  For someone with a less obsessive interest and more limited time, this problem must be so much worse. In other words, I do not blame parents if their children’s diet is loaded with anti-nutrients that may contribute to obesity.  I blame the lack of straightforward, no-nonsense information.

Signpost to Success?

Clear, universally understood labeling exists for many diets. Why not no sugar, meaning NO sugar too?

What is my suggestion?  I believe that food which is genuinely free of sugar (and this includes honey, maple syrup, artificial sweeteners, and everything in between) should be clearly signposted with a universally-recognised symbol. Vegetarians and vegans know which foods are suitable for them because they carry a “V-sign”.  Our Kosher and Hallal friends instantly know which meat to buy according to its label.  Why not, then, have a similar label for sugar?  Then parents can quickly make an informed choice about what to buy for their children.  Of course, obesity is highly complex, and merely demonising sugar is not the answer, but this would be a simple and relatively economical step in the right direction.

What do you think the Government should (and should not) be doing about childhood obesity?  I’d love to hear from you.