Not many people seem impressed by the final form of the UK government 'sugar tax' legislation intended to help counter childhood obesity and all its attendant health consequences (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/18/childhood-obesity-strategy-not-even-an-e-for-effort). Everyone recognises that obesity is associated with type 2 diabetes and a range of other problems (including tooth decay) in later life but the government appears to have axed key suggestions that the 'food' producers have found problematic. The 'sugar tax' only appears to apply to fizzy drinks and replacement of sweeteners by glucose, honey and some other 'natural' elements still boosts calorie intake. I have already aired my doubts on marketing many 'sports drinks' as performance-improving aids. Reducing the sugar content of other foods (including pasta sauces, bread and ketchup) now seems likely to be an optional aspiration rather than mandatory requirement. Perhaps worse of all is the backing away from the committee recommendation to prohibit the directing of advertising of unhealthy foods to young children (I appreciate that this is difficult given the range of social media but children a) often have no idea of the consequences of consumption as well as being prone to peer pressures and b) can exert considerable 'pester power' on even the most enlightened parent). I can't really see the sugar tax improving exercise levels- it's not likely to fund the repurchase of sold-off school playing fields or to increase the use of leisure centres/swimming pools that are either a) too expensive for some parents or b) in danger of being closed due to financial restrictions. All this is in stark contrast to the GB performance at the Rio Olympics- I bet our athlete's dietary intake is better looked after than that of our children!
No comments:
Post a Comment