Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Kerry McCarthy (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 25 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Food Products (Marketing to Children) Bill.


Food Products (Marketing to Children) Bill

As I suggested in an intervention, I want to focus on the impact that the changing nature of the food that we consume has, not only on children's physical health, but on the mental health of children and adults. On the detail of what is in some of the food that children are consuming, a Food Commission nutritionist, Annie Seeley, said recently:"““Nearly 40 per cent. of children's foods and drinks contain additives””." A national survey conducted in 2000 by the Department of Health looked at the diets of more than 1,700 children, and found:"““Children aged between 11 and 14 were getting as much as 31 per cent. of their energy from sugar, compared with the recommended level of 11 per cent.””" Legal additives commonly used in children's food include tartrazine. It has been assessed that its side-effects include anxiety, migraines, clinical depression, blurred vision, a feeling of suffocation, purple skin patches and sleep disturbance. Most importantly, there is a link to childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder. The Food Standards Agency found that when it was used in combination with other additives, it increased levels of hyperactivity in children. There are also real concerns about the use of artificial sweeteners in children's food. Such sweeteners may have a link to carcinogens, and are also linked to migraines, nausea and bowel problems. Other additives in children's food that have caused concern are hydrogenated and trans fats and refined carbohydrates. A survey by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that the IQ of children who ate the greatest amount of refined carbs was 25 points lower than that of those who ate the least amount of refined carbs. Obviously, the question of whether that is cause and effect is an issue; the difference is not necessarily the result of diet, but it is a matter that is worth considering. A study carried out in 2006 looked at the overall impact on mental health of the nutrients that are being consumed—or rather not being consumed—these days. It was carried out by Sustain, the food campaign group, and the Mental Health Foundation. They concluded that the changing nature of people's diets had a significant impact on mental health and could be linked to the rise in mental illness in the past 50 years. The report was called, ““Feeding Minds””, and examined a topic that is a hobby-horse of mine—the growth of industrialised farming. It cited the introduction of pesticides in foods and also the intensive farming of, for example, chickens, which now reach their slaughter weight twice as fast as they did 30 years ago. That means that the fat content is 22 per cent. rather than 2 per cent. The balance of vital fatty acids, such as Omega 3 and Omega 6, in chickens has also been altered. That is not specifically the point of the Bill, but we need to take into account of not only the food that we can readily identify as unhealthy, but other food, which is becoming increasingly less nutritious and healthy. The study also confirmed that people eat 34 per cent. fewer vegetables and that could be linked to depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and Alzheimer's. I want to consider surveys of attempts to moderate people's diets and clinical trials of moderating young people's diet to affect behavioural problems and improve mental health. A controlled experiment was conducted in the United States in a jail for chronic offenders aged between 13 and 17. Many of the boys there were found to be deficient in specific nutrients. For example, they consumed on average only 63 per cent. of the iron, 42 per cent. of the magnesium, 39 per cent. of the zinc and 39 per cent. of the vitamin B12 in the US Government's recommended daily allowance. The researchers conducted a trial in which half the inmates were treated with placebos and half were given capsules that contained the missing nutrients. They also gave the prisoners advice on how to improve their diets. As a result of the trial, the number of violent incidents caused by inmates in the control group, which took the placebos, fell by 56 per cent., and those caused by prisoners in the experimental group, which took the capsules, fell by 80 per cent. However, there was no reduction among the inmates who took the placebos but refused to improve their diets. It is therefore clear that those who took the capsules benefited most, those who voluntarily changed their diets showed the second most notable change in behaviour, but those who did not change their diets showed no change. Other studies have been conducted. A study carried out in Aylesbury young offenders institution between 1995-97 found that, among young adult prisoners given vitamin, fatty acid and mineral supplements, disciplinary offences fell by 26 per cent. and violent offences decreased by 37 per cent. In the control group, which was given placebos, disciplinary and violent offences did not decrease. The author of the report told The Ecologist last year that,"““having a bad diet is now a better predictor of future violence than past violent behaviour…Likewise, a diagnosis of psychopathy””." Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, picked up on that and said that he was"““convinced that there is a direct link between diet and antisocial behaviour””," and that it was ““hugely important”” to tackle that in our prisons.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
474 c1594-6 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Advertising Broadcasting programmes Diabetes Food Labelling Heart diseases Nutrition Marketing Mental health Obesity Sports Television
Legislation
Food Products (Marketing to Children) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk