And I don't disagree with that, I was just trying to explain to Liz why I said what I said.

I have a 'healthly' cereal bar in fromt of me. It is a Quaker Chewy Granola Bar (low fat). The nutrition facts are that it has 2 g of fat, 1 g of protein and 22 g of carbs (10 sugar, 1 fiber). In the ingredients are partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil (listed three times), corn syrup, and natural and artificial flavors (which could mean MSG), high fructose corn syrup (three times), sugar (3 times).

As it contains wheat, soy and milk; if a child has any food allergies, then this product will help aggrevate them.

The large box I got the bar from states "Labeled for C-stores & Vending"

Well apologies - I wasn't sure from which direction you were coming!

No prob, we're all friends here, sometimes I'm not sure what direction I'm going either.

Among the other proposals which may be included in the select committee's report is a "traffic light" system, under which all products would be labelled with red, orange or green dots, depending on how healthy they were.



I think this might be a good idea because most processed and junk food would be red. The fact that the food industry seems to fear it suggests it might have some effect. I'd like to see the end of multipacks and supersized portions of processed foods like crisps and sweets. Also promotions (3 for 2 etc) or anything that encourages people to buy more.

I also think parents should get serious about commercial interference in schools. Get militant. Demand change.

"Also promotions (3 for 2 etc) or anything that encourages people to buy more."

Lord no! We can't get rid of those! It helps the budget tremendously.

LOL I'm sure you meant on the highly processed foods, and I agree and disagree. I have no problem limiting advertizing, especially ones aimed at kids.....but prices are a different story. The manufacturers should be allowed to sell their products at prices as they see fit. They should also be able to have specials, coupons, etc to boost sales. If the regulators get into that we could have a real mess on our hands! Do you only restrict "unhealthy" foods? if so, who decides what's "unhealthy". I am 100% against any interference on price setting for all products....except to make sure two or more companies aren't getting together to "price fix".

What I would like to see is TRUTH in advertizing and pricing. If an item is more than one serving, it should be CLEARLY stated...maybe even have regulations as to size of text and placement. If you can pay $1 for an item by itself, but $3 for a larger package that serves 4, that should also be plainly marked.

I'd also like to see better ingredient lists and more complete nutrition facts.

But what does "boost sales" mean to shoppers?--- a population of shoppers buys so many chocolate bars one week. The next week there's a promotion and they buy, say 10% more. Where does that extra chocolate go? It's not that it balances out in sales in future weeks, because that wouldn't be "boosting sales", and food companies wouldn't bother if there was no advantage. The extra chocolate gets eaten by the population of shoppers in addition to their normal intake!

This is one way in which people are slowly trained to eat more to the benefit of food companies.

If promotions were removed, the normal price of product should be lower. And because the population is eating 10% less, it might not be much more expensive for them to do without promotions.

Well I think the only way you'd see an impact on price is if ALL advertizing is stopped.

And if a company wants to do that, fine.....but I don't agree that the government should be involved in regulating who can advertise and how.....as long as they are truthfull in their advertising.

Now....if the ad for the chocolate says/implies that this is a healthy food it definitly should be stopped. But if the company simply wants to advertise their product....whether it's 5% of their profit going to ads or 80%.....that should be their choice.

This is a capitalistic society. In this society we allow buisnesses to make their own choices. We should monitor ads for acccuracy (and that would remove a lot of "diet" ads) but I dont' want to see the gov't regulating who can advertise and how.

I'm concerned about this one.

Yes, some of the supermarket items like obvious junk food would be marked red, but what about those processed and so-called "healthy" bars/snacks/ready meals etc which had low fat content? They would be marked green, because low fat is the be-all and end-all. Also, what about a healthy slice of fresh cheese? And fresh butter and cream? And fresh meat? All would get the red light in the present nutrition environment.

Plus, I think that many people already know what is "healthy". They do buy low fat milk and reduced fat spreads. They do concentrate on eating plenty of pasta/rice/bread/complex carbs with their meals. And still they are fat. I was one of them once. Now I am enlightened

I just don't think the traffic light system will help matters.

Have just come across this interesting article in today's Times:

Labour will ban junk-food adverts on children's TV
By Sam Lister, Health Correspondent and Greg Hurst

LABOUR will make a ban on advertisements for junk food during children’s television programmes a key manifesto pledge for the general election to show its commitment to tackling childhood obesity.
Producers of confectionery, fizzy drinks and fast food will be banned from advertising on television at particular times of the day under the law.

The move comes after scathing criticism of the Government in a report by the Commons Health Select Committee, which concluded that ministers had failed repeatedly to address the nation’s weight problems.

Despite being known to favour educating the public on healthy eating rather than implementing laws, John Reid, the Health Secretary, has decided to take the “nuclear option” of an advertising ban to stem the alarming rise of youth obesity.

The committee’s report, published last week, detailed how a three-year-old girl weighing more than 6st had died from heart failure. Doctors who treated her gave warning to the committee that the tragedy was likely to become commonplace if action was not taken to curb obesity in the young.

Mr Reid responded by telling his officials to draw up laws banning junk food advertising during prime-time children’s television, but allowing it during adult programmes. Exactly how “junk food” will be defined remains unclear.

A White Paper on public health, which will contain the proposal for the ban, will be published in the autumn. However, with a general election expected next summer, the Government is not expected to introduce a Bill to Parliament during the next session. Instead, the measure will become a key vote-winning pledge in Labour’s manifesto.

Aides said that Mr Reid was persuaded to back the move by arguments that, while adults can make “informed choices” about what they eat, this option is not available to younger children. About 1,150 adverts for junk food are shown daily during children’s programmes, according to research.

Labour MPs expect an official announcement on the advertisement ban at their party’s annual conference in Brighton in September.

Tony Blair yesterday reiterated the need for individuals to take more responsibility for their waistlines, and not rely on government health strategies.

Speaking on the BBC One programme Breakfast with Frost, the Prime Minister said: “I am responsible for many things, but I can’t make people slimmer. The prime responsibility for people looking after themselves is with people. What I can do is encourage, for example, sport in schools, which we are expanding. We can give information to people, we can try to get the food industry to behave responsibly.”

The committee’s report said that obesity has grown by almost 400 per cent in 25 years, with three quarters of adults overweight or obese. England has the fastest-growing obesity problem in Europe. The report calculates that being overweight or obese costs the nation £7.4 billion a year.

Martin Paterson, the deputy director-general of the Food and Drink Federation, said that the industry, which spends hundreds of millions of pounds on television advertising each year, saw little benefit in a ban. “We have seen examples of bans in Quebec and Sweden, for example, but making no difference,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1129085,00.html

it's about time. Hope Canada follows suit. If it was up to me, junk food would be like adult material. Something kids don't see unless they go look for it.

Yup, sweets and sodas on the top shelf sound exactly right to me.

Who is gonna hide the junk food from the adults?

Many adults cant control their eating and cant set a good example for children.

I know plenty of adults that eat junk all day and then feel guilty saying no to their children, because they eat the stuff themselves.

Here in the states they usually have candy at the checckout....same in Canada? Also, a few stores have a few "special" checkouts for parents.....there's no candy or other treats at these registers.

I've seen parents stand in line in these "no treat" lines.....while a "regular" register is open. They do it so they won't have to argue with their kids!

An adult is assumed responsible enough to make his/her own choices. Unfortunately some don't have the maturity necessary to make those choices, but there is little to be done about that, except takes the kids away, in extreme cases. As we know, that has happened.

However, if the food is "out of sight out of mind", it will give poor parents a break. Like the "no candy" checkout aisle Cindysue mentionned. If the kids aren't constantly brainwashed into desiring junk food, if they don't see it at every opportunity, there is a better chance of them not even developping a taste for it. Now combine this approach with a strong education campaign (aimed at the parents, not just the kids) on the danger of junk food and there is a hope to curb this obesity epidemic.

Oh and impose a surtax on junk food. Use the profits to finance all these education campaigns.