Crisps and chips are good for children : LETTERS
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Professor Donald J. Naismith Sir: Your article ("Store-war price cuts `promote junk food' ", 11 January) reports the attack by the Food Commission on the misguided, if not cynical, policy of the supermarkets in discounting so-called junk foods in preference to "healthy" foods. The f oods listed are particularly popular among children, who have very distinct food preferences and aversions which, as most parents discover, are abandoned with the onset of maturity. Cutting the cost of foods for children is surely not a policy to be depl ored.
The prevalence of obesity in children is at present around 5 per cent. The vast majority are thus not obese, and an increasing proportion of children are showing poor growth and low bodyweight resulting simply from an inadequate intake of energy (not protein or vitamins and minerals). The cause is poverty. Since energy is the major determinant of growth, the choice of cheap energy-dense food (such as chips) is to be commended. Cutting the price of high-fibre low-calorie fruits and vegetables would be oflittle help.
The claim that the foods listed are "inferior" is a very misleading one. Inferior to what? Hamburgers made from top-quality steak and fish fingers made from whole cod (unmashed) could be of higher nutritional value but would undoubtedly cost a great dealmore. Is a glass of mineral water superior to a can of soft drink (140 calories)? Is an apple (47 calories) superior to a bag of crisps (164 calories) which, incidentally, provides not only more fibre than an apple but also more of the antioxidant vitamins C and E and is the richest common dietary source of potassium, a mineral, thought to prevent the development of hypertension.
People are receptive to health education that acknowledges the socio-economic factors that limit food choice and is couched in terms that are easily understood. The layman may be baffled by the chemistry of his dietary fats but is able to tell his flora from his fauna. Coercion by pricing is unlikely to bring about a change in eating habits, even among the adult population and the dogmatic approach favoured by the Food Commission generates resentment, not enlightenment.
Should the supermarkets decide, however, to cut the cost of items believed to have a role in the prevention of atherosclerosis, then may I suggest that they begin with table wines?
Yours faithfully, DONALD J. NAISMITH Department of Nutrition & Dietetics King's College University of London London, W8
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments