Sometimes, I feel a bit sorry for those accused of backing a Nanny state. Spat at in radio phone-ins and comment pieces, they are the butt of outrage when it comes to red tape and excessive regulation, and take a regular – often well-deserved – kicking. But we shouldn’t forget that in the right doses, they are sometimes just the help we need and have earned their place.
I got thinking about the ‘nanny state’ at our first national Children’s Food Conference. We’d commissioned national polling to feed into a debate about how the voluntary sector, government and business can do more to help parents and their children eat more healthily. The message from the 1,000-plus families surveyed by ComRes was only too familiar for many of us who are parents: encouraging children to eat well can be really hard. Has it ever been more difficult?
Almost three quarters of parents had bought things like chocolate, sweets, crisps, and sugary drinks and cereals in the last month when they didn’t intend to, after being pestered by their child.
Two thirds agreed that they could do more to make their child’s diet healthier; and the same proportion said they supported the idea of a 9pm watershed for TV advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt. Almost all wanted to see healthier children’s menus in restaurants and smaller portions of the adult menus on offer, too. A total of 79% said that there should be minimum nutritional requirements for the food offered by any organisation that may be looking after children.
We asked similar questions to delegates at the conference and got striking answers: 90% said there is still too much advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt; 72% said that pack labelling for children’s food and children’s portions isn’t clear enough; and 95% said that there should be stronger minimum requirements for children’s food for any organisation acting in loco parentis.
Some may be surprised by these figures; I wasn’t. Listen to your average morning radio phone-in and it’s easy to assume that many parents would rather face the thumbscrews than admit that Nanny might have the odd good point.
By no means is she always right for the job, and she can’t – and shouldn’t – do it alone. But when it comes to the health of our kids – and the critical prognosis for the NHS when supporting them as tomorrow’s overweight and obese adults – isn’t help from Nanny food for thought, if parents themselves admit they’re struggling?
She’s got to work alongside clear information that we can all get our heads around, and genuine efforts to make food and drink products better for all of us.
But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from our work with school food, it’s that Nanny really can make a difference. School food still has a way to go, but having nutritional standards set down in legislation has made a really tangible impact on the food that children having school meals eat during the day.
With Nanny’s help, schools that meet the standards are creating an environment that does lead to
better choices for at least part of their lives, as they form their ideas about food and healthy eating.
Yes, it’s only part of the picture; yes, children still eat the majority of their meals away from school; yes, it’s more difficult to do outside of that environment – but aren’t there things we can learn?
The challenge, of course, is knowing when and how to get Nanny involved. What will help rather than hinder parents in feeding their children well?
The overwhelming feeling from our conference was that we already know what works; to have an impact, we need to use it all in tandem.
Caterers are in a unique position to get behind parents on this. From the looks of our results, they’ll thank you for it. And I suspect that Nanny will thank you, too.