Obesity. It seems Philip Larkin was right...

****

I hope this is true - it may be a false dawn - but there is evidence of some more sensible thinking around public health, thinking that is moving away from the kneejerk New Puritan and prohibitionist rhetoric. Rather than talk of all-population solutions, we get work looking at targeting. It seems that the lessons of AIDS and HIV - blanket advertising doesn't work nearly as well as a focus on the high risk groups - is beginning to creep into thinking around other public health topics.

Here, for example, is Nick Pearce, Director of left-wing think tank IPPR talking about Early Bird a study looking at the precursors of diabetes in children:

All children gain weight during growth, but EarlyBird is interested in the excess gained. It finds that over 90% of the excess weight in girls, and over 70% in boys, is gained before the child ever gets to school age. These findings support a need to re-direct public health initiatives towards an earlier period in childhood.

And the report goes on to show that:

Daughters of obese mothers are 10 times more likely to be obese than the daughters of normal weight mothers, and the sons of obese fathers six times

So rather than use nannying, all-population bans, taxes and controls, we should begin to target the main at risk group - the children of the obese. And there's more - it seems that exercise isn't the answer either:

Using time-lagged correlation to imply direction of causality, weight gain appears to precede inactivity, rather than inactivity to weight gain.

People don't exercise because they're fat, they're not fat because they don't exercise.

Pearce's piece still talks about 'obesogenic' environments (despite the evidence from the study he cites where the critical environment is the home environment prior to school) and suggests population-wide interventions, so we're not out of the woods yet. But the findings throw up some different - perhaps more effective than the environmental interventions preferred at the moment - possibilities. These could include:

• Better pre- and post-natal information and support especially for obese mothers. We have existing engagement from health authorities through pregnancy and the first year of a child's life - this present an opportunity to target public health interventions
• Understanding of diet and it's relationship to weight is poor (not least among public health professionals) - there is the chance to improve information, again targeted at the parents of young children

What isn't needed is policies that target the pleasures of those who are not overweight and not at risk because some people enjoying those pleasures are obese and at risk. Yet this is still the preferred approach - that and gimmicks like daft awards schemes for takeaways serving smaller portions!

In the end, it seems that Philip Larkin was right after all!

...

"We think people know there's sugar in them..."

****

Here we go again. A few weeks after Denmark realised it's 'fat tax' was stupid and unworkable, Britain's Labour Party decides it would be a super wheeze to take the same approach with sugar. Except they're cleverer - the evil word "tax" is avoided and instead we'll have a nice friendly cap. At 30% sugar content - anything more than this and "whooosh", off the shelves.

Mr Burnham highlighted the case of children’s breakfast cereals. Many are over one third sugar by weight.

Examples of high sugar cereals include Kellogg's Frosties (37.0g per 100g), Asda and Tesco Choco Snaps (both 36.1g) and Honey Monster Sugar Puffs (35g). 

Frosties, Sugar Puffs and so forth have been around for 60 years and, as Kellogg's say:  "we think people know there’s sugar in them – we’re not hiding it." So why all the excitement now - I guess there's another scare about how all our kids are lard buckets because of fast food, chocolate and evil food manufacturers who sneak nasty sugar into sweets. That and advertising of course.

Maybe Burnham will be banning the sale of granulated sugar - unless you get a baking licence or something - so we don't pile great spoonfuls onto our cornflakes? How about banning jam - those crafty mums might give the kids bread and jam (worse it might be white bread)!. It might even be that this jam and sugar will go into making something called a "cake" - more sugar loaded goodies making our children ever fatter!

Now let me explain something to Mr Burnham (and to the fussbuckets in my party who are kicking themselves for not thinking of this particular ban first), there's this thing called parental responsibility. You know, the thing where you as a responsible adult in charge of your children, regulate what they eat and drink. If children are fat it is nearly always because their parents give them too much to eat.

 

We had a slim child staying over New Year who loved her bowl of Coco Pops (as did my now grown up son) - what Burnham and the other nannying fussbuckets are saying is that this little girl can't have this pleasure because some other parents have fat children.

....

It's bad parenting not the pressure of modern life that's the problem

****

We are told by “200 experts” that children’s health is being undermined by the pressures of modern life. 

“Although parents are now deeply concerned about this issue, the erosion of childhood in the UK has continued apace since 2006. Our children are subjected to increasing commercial pressures, they begin formal education far earlier than the European norm, and they spend ever-more time indoors with screen-based technology, rather than in active outdoor activity and play.”

Apparently – or rather according to unspecified “studies” – the ‘well-being’ of British children falls below some supposed international standard. And judging by the letter, this is despite parents being 'concerned'.

Now it seems to me that there isn’t a great deal of substance in this argument. It may be that our children are suffering because of “commercial pressures” but it is far more likely that the problem isn’t advertising, computers games or television but bad parenting.

Here’s one of the 200 making her point:

One study by Sally Goddard Blythe, the director of the Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology in Chester, concluded that up to half of children were not ready for school at the age of five because of “sedentary lifestyles”. They struggled to grip pencils properly, sit still, stand up straight and even catch a ball after failing to develop physical and communication skills at a young age.

It isn’t the “pressures of modern life” that’s causing this problem now is it, Sally? It’s the parents of these children – the ones who don’t play with them, who use the telly as a baby-sitter, feed them an endless soothing diet of fizzy drinks, sweets and chocolate and don't take them to the park.

So why do these “experts” take it upon themselves to challenge something called “modern life” rather than the failing parenting of some mothers and fathers (assuming the latter is anywhere to be seen)? I’m sure the children of these 200 ‘experts’ are not suffering in this way. I’m sure they’ll grow up active, able, well-adjusted and able to recognise advertising (and its purpose). Indeed, most children - a clear majority - will benefit from modern life, from the TV, from computer games, from computers and from the wonders these things bring into our homes.

But what these 200 "experts" propose is a collection of tired, old-fashioned ‘progressive’ solutions – banning advertising (there’s always a ban close to the surface when these so-called ‘experts’ write), replacing education with play and further interference in the curriculum of primary schools. And absolutely nothing – not even a mention – of poor parenting.

And it is parenting not modern life that is the problem.

....

Some parents shouldn't be let loose with names...

*****

Michael Crick reports on Ed Miliband's carefully constructed audience in Nottingham and speaking of one questioner says he was:

...a former councillor called Len, who admitted he'd actually been christened Lenin, and that his parents had called his brother Stalin.

Amazing! I once knew a lad called Sid - his full given name was Siddhartha. Some parents, eh!

....

A thought about nature...

Yesterday, my son got on a plane headed for Christchurch, New Zealand - to do a university research project and follow that with a tour round the country doing those dangerous sports parents would rather not know about.

And between setting off from Heathrow and arriving for a refuelling stop in LA, Christchuch suffered a massive earthquake - its second such occurance in six months. And this time at least 65 people were killed alongside destroyed buildings and burst pipes.

After a couple of hours parental panic, it struck me that yet again nature reminds us of how little we control the planet. Reminds us of our hubris. And reminds us of our capacity to respond to these events with compassion, support and love.

....