The background to the article is the launch of an initiative by the Food Standards Agency aimed at improving the nutritional value of children’s packed lunches, after a survey found they contained high levels of sugar, salt and fat.
Lyons’s conclusion is that:
None of this advice will help one little bit. It attempts to solve a problem that largely exists in the FSA's own mind, makes parents' lives that little bit harder, and increases an unhealthy obsession with food.I’m not a big fan of the FSA, so I’m usually well disposed to criticism of its activities but not this time. I think Lyons is wrong.
Maybe the advice from the FSA won’t help, government information campaigns aimed at changing consumer behaviour are usually expensive flops, but the problem is real enough.
Poor diet is not only leading to increasing obesity and associated health problems, it has also been cited as a contributory factor in poor academic achievement amongst children from low income families.
If kids were eating a balanced diet at home and getting plenty of exercise, I guess it wouldn’t matter that much if their lunchboxes were full of salt, sugar and fat. But the evidence suggests that many children are not eating a balanced diet and not taking part in physical activities, and it's damaging their health.
I don’t like the government telling me what to do any more than the next guy and they’ve certainly got no business telling people what to eat, but providing information about the consequences of a poor diet seems a reasonable function of government to me.
But hey, if people want fat, unhealthy kids that’s okay, as long as the kids are choosing it too. Right?
