No subject

games of power and influence are being played out over what we eat and
drink. Commercial interests are trying to influence both policy makers and
pupils, with varying degrees of subtlety. Vending machines sell Coke and
Tango, crisps and sweets in schools - a quick sugar fix for hungry kids and
cash for the head to buy more books. Food companies sponsor educational
worksheets and information booklets. Walker's salt and fat-heavy crisps
offer "books for schools" vouchers, and Nestle promises money for schools
that collect packet tops from sugar-loaded cereals.
The UK Food Commission, which campaigns against these promotions, says most
British children consume more fat, sugar and salt than is recommended for an
adult, and around 9% of boys and 13.5% of girls in England are overweight.
In 10 years, from 1984 to 1994, obesity in primary schoolchildren went up by
140%.
Joe Harvey, director of the Health Education Trust, which runs the Schools
Nutrition Action Group, thinks UK schools are ill-equipped to deal with the
seductions offered by the food and drink industry and that parents need
help. "It is, I would have thought, something that the Government should
take on," he says. "It's absolute rubbish to say that television ads don't
impact on children. It's an onslaught. Look at the advertising on Saturday
morning. Tell me, is there any balance in that?" Where are the fruit and
vegetable ads, he asks.
The British Soft Drinks Association could not agree less. Richard Laming,
public affairs manager, says advertising is good for children. "Children
have to grow up in the world as it is, and the world has advertising in it.
The research shows they know the difference between advertising and TV
programmes. Where it is prohibited, the quality of children's TV declines
because the programme makers can't justify spending so much money. So the
overall impact is to harm children, not to protect them, because it reduces
the quality of children's television."
The association, which represents the major soft drinks players in the UK,
also does not agree with the WHO take on nutrition, sugar and corpulence.
"The problem is sedentary lifestyles, and diet hasn't caught up - the
crucial thing is to encourage more active lifestyles," says Laming.
In spite of this apparent stone wall, Derek Yach, head of non-communicable
diseases for the WHO, which includes both obesity and tobacco, says he is
optimistic. "The interaction with the industry is extremely dynamic," he
says. The response at first was hostile, but "we have started talking to all
the major multinational companies involved, and we believe there is a
serious spirit of trying to work with WHO. It is still very early days, but
I would anticipate that what we are going to see is stronger competition
among the companies to try to use health as an added lever to sell their
products."
   UK
• 21% of 7-10 year olds drink nearly 10 cans of fizzy drink a week -
eight cans being bought for them by their parents; 75% are consumed at home.
• 9% of boys and 13.5% of girls are overweight in England. Obesity has
been linked to the first cases of Type 2 diabetes noted among UK teenagers.
• British and American children are exposed to around 10 food
commercials for every hour that they watch TV.
  US
• The department of agriculture recommends consuming no more than 40gm
of refined sugar a day, the equivalent of one can of fizzy drink, which can
contain up to 11 teaspoons of sugar.
• 25% of the average American overall sugar consumption comes from soft
drinks.
• Two-thirds of US adolescents drink soft drinks daily. Profits from
the sales of carbonated drinks are estimated at  an average $39,000 for
every high school every year. The sale of soft drinks is to be banned in LA
schools by January 2004.
• A quarter of American children are overweight, with 12% of boys and
11% of girls classed as obese. It is claimed that carbonated drinks could
account for 9% of boys' daily calorie intake and 8% of girls'.
 <I> Catherine Lofthouse</I>

The Guardian Weekly 20-3-0123, page 22