BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Does the Jamie Oliver approach work?

13:39 UK time, Wednesday, 30 June 2010

The Jamie Oliver approach will not work in tackling public health problems like obesity and smoking, the health secretary says. What approach does work?

Andrew Lansley told the British Medical Association conference in Brighton there must be an evidence-based approach to dealing with public health, with people taking responsibility for themselves.

"If we are constantly lecturing people and trying to tell them what to do, we will actually find that we undermine and are counterproductive in the results that we achieve," said the health secretary.

Is the lecturing approach counterproductive? Do people need to be told what to eat? What makes you take the healthy approach?

This debate has now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    Stop paying for treatment on the NHS for problems which are down to "life style" choices. Take away benefits from obese people who refuse to help themselves. Most (not all) obesity is down to the life style choices, as is most lung cancer (although again not all) down to the effects of smoking.

    Stop "rewarding" people for being stupid, then these people can do as they like with out burdening the rest of us with the clean up bill.

  • Comment number 2.

    I really don't understand WHY parents let their kids get so unhealthy?

    WHY do they let them have 3 MacDonalds happy meals a week?
    WHY don't they encourage them to get more physical exercise by taking them out of the house on walks and bike rides??
    WHY don't they feed them more fruit and veg from an earlier age???
    I really don't understand what motivates parents into leading their kids down such an unhealthy lifestyle????

    My very basic idea is that if parents taught their kids a relatively healthy lifestyle early on then they are more likely to live healthier through their entire life and pass this mentality on to their kids. I don't understand why many parents find this so difficult?????????

  • Comment number 3.

    The best approach to improving the health of the nation would be long-term political and social plans to improve the happiness of the nation. People are eating and drinking more because they're miserable. Over-worked, under-paid, more materialistic and more stressed than ever before. And it's not just us in the UK, mental health issues are rising throughout the Western world. Frankly obesity, alcoholism, depression etc are just another set of symptoms of the disease that has caused our economy to fail: a capitalist system that is benefitting fewer and fewer people.

  • Comment number 4.

    Most people resent being told what to do and will do the opposite just to rebel.
    We should be allowed to live our own lives and these "Do Gooders" should mind their own business.
    Besides, if you ever look around any old graveyard you can see that people years ago still lived to ripe old ages without all this pampering.

  • Comment number 5.

    Hang on, I'm just overcoming my kneee jerk reaction to the words 'Jamie Oliver'.

    Ok,

    If by lecturing they mean making sure that the facts about various health issues are in the public domain, then that can't be a bad thing - it allows us to make informed decisions about our lifestyle.

    If by lecturing they mean just repeating the same 'don't do it' message over and over agin, implying there is no choice, then i don't think that's particularly helpful or effective.

  • Comment number 6.

    Mr. Oliver’s back balance got bigger, but the students never got thinner...

    Another celebrity made money out of the stupid labour gov, and us taxpaying public and the losers

  • Comment number 7.

    Will a Jamie 'real food' cooking regime work in schools? Yes.

    Is it cheaper than junk food? No.

    Does the Tory government care about cost more than health? Yes.

    Will they tackle boesity at school as a result? No.

  • Comment number 8.

    Its not the place of schools or the government to dictate to parents what their children eat.In a democracy we must be allowed to choose.Stop all the Jamie Oliver nonsense and allow children to eat what they like not what others think they should eat.In other words mind your own business.

  • Comment number 9.

    It has to start with the family. That is commonsense. Parents can play a big role here in early life plus more technical knowledge gained at school.
    Celebrity chefs are not the way forward. We have too many on BBC telling us how to live our lives!!! Shame

  • Comment number 10.

    On the topic of school dinners, the real problem is the 'cash cafeteria' approach. Far better to go back to the old style of 3 options: you eat the set dinner, you bring a packed lunch or you go home (and I mean HOME) to eat.

    My daughter (now a year 8) had school dinners throughout primary school - for a monthly charge she was fed every day, there were choices but as a whole a balanced meal was provided. Being a bit of a foodie (a dad who cooks to chef standards - he has worked professionally as a chef - has instilled a love of food) she was delighted when the Oliver-led changes were implemented.

    In secondary school, she finds the cash cafeteria far less pleasant to use and their interpretation of 'healthy' seems to revolve around a refusal to season anything properly! She quite often pops across the road to a supermarket to buy sandwiches instead.

    She's taken to cookery lessons like a duck to water, although her last report commented that she was given to varying the set recipe. (We think that referred to her ignoring the one given for an 'English' moussaka and making hers in traditional Greek style!)

    In general, though, the idea of educating people and letting them take resposibility for their own lifestyles instead of the over-dictatorial approach seems sensible, particularly if the education is clearly evidence-led and not just fads driven by statistics and flawed measurements such as BMI.

  • Comment number 11.

    Tory logic. Errr.... ok then, lets tell everyone to eat cream cakes, and fatty foods with a high sugar content. That way we'll all be healthy.

  • Comment number 12.

    The British see food as fuel, they are also programmed to expect food to be cheap.
    Once cookery and nutrition classes were cut, coupled with the number of families where both parents work, its not surprising that cheap, fast food is the preferred choice.
    Being interested in food is seen as a middle class obsession.
    Improved health would save the NHS and us as taxpayers a fortune.

  • Comment number 13.

    It's tightrope that we tread encouraging people to be healthy. Schools and Government can only do so much to ensure children are receiving the correct nutrition on a daily basis, the hard work has to be done at home. For the parents who complain that "My kids don't like fruit and vegetables" how about refusing to give their kids anything until they eat a proper balanced meal? When a kid is hungry, they will eat whatever you put in front of them. If they whinge that they don't like it, tell them "tough, it's all you're getting."

    Encouraging healthy eating should start at weaning. Ditch the jars of highly sweetened baby food and make them something yourself. There really is no excuse, you are the parent, you have the power. If your kids are dictating the menu then you're not doing your job properly.

    It's not exactly rocket science, and don't complain that fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive. Pre-packaged pap is extortionately expensive, so if you can fill your trolley with that you aren't exactly poverty stricken are you? It's down to laziness and apathy on the part of the parent, nothing else.

  • Comment number 14.

    "1. At 3:05pm on 30 Jun 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:
    Stop paying for treatment on the NHS for problems which are down to "life style" choices."

    Like DIY accidents? Driving cars? Skiing or playing Rugby? Why should we pay millions for someone left a quadraplegic when a rugby scrum collapses? His choice to play rugby..... I work with radiation, human blood (so possible HIV / Hepatitis) and some really nasty poisons. I don't HAVE to do this job... I could probably push paper in an office. Should I get NHS cover if I poison myself by accident? After all its a choice to do my job.

    What you're suggesting sets a very dangerous precident and also ignores the fact that the person who's 'lifestyle choice's' you object to has probably paid taxes towards the NHS. If the NHS gets to pick and choose who to treat then us taxpapers should be allowed to choose whether to pay towards the service or buy private cover instead.

  • Comment number 15.

    "Mr Lansley said people needed to take responsibility for their own health."

    How I agree with that. It is *always* down to the individual (or parent, regarding children) in the end. Personally, the more I am lectured about how I should be living my life, be it by Jamie Oliver or any other public figure/random health report/research, the more I find myself wishing they would all clear off and let us decide for ourselves.

    Should people wish to smoke/eat/drink themselves into an early grave etc etc, and not heed SENSIBLE advice, well...that's down to them.

  • Comment number 16.

    "12. At 3:29pm on 30 Jun 2010, LeftieAgitator wrote:
    The British see food as fuel, they are also programmed to expect food to be cheap."

    Food IS Fuel and given the size of profits Tesco make there's no reason why it shouldn't be cheap either. However it is perfectly possible to make delicious food for very little that is also pretty good fuel.

    Start with dried pasta... all it needs is a bit of oil, chilli and garlic and some salad on the side. You can feed an army for a few quid that way.

    I did have quite extensive cookery classes at school and they were rubbish. I learnt to cook from my mother (a nurse who MADE me cook a family meal once a week) and she learnt from her mother (who was a housewife... my grandad was a miner) so being able to cook properly is not limited to the middle classes.

  • Comment number 17.

    · 1. At 3:05pm on 30 Jun 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:
    Stop paying for treatment on the NHS for problems which are down to "life style" choices. Take away benefits from obese people who refuse to help themselves. Most (not all) obesity is down to the life style choices, as is most lung cancer (although again not all) down to the effects of smoking.

    Stop "rewarding" people for being stupid, then these people can do as they like with out burdening the rest of us with the clean up bill.

    ######################

    Almost every accident, injury, disease, health condition is down to someone’s “Choice”

    A really stupid comment



  • Comment number 18.

    All Jamie Oliver, does is try to educate people.. What can be wrong in that? If you are not informed how can you make the right choices. Some commentators have already suggested punishing people for ignorance.. I would rather have people who try and ecucate people so they can make informed choices..

    I'm not a fan of Jamie Oliver's style, but that does not blind me to the fact that he is trying to make a difference by improving people life style choices.

  • Comment number 19.

    3. At 3:15pm on 30 Jun 2010, Dan_Dover wrote:

    The best approach to improving the health of the nation would be long-term political and social plans to improve the happiness of the nation. People are eating and drinking more because they're miserable. Over-worked, under-paid, more materialistic and more stressed than ever before. And it's not just us in the UK, mental health issues are rising throughout the Western world. Frankly obesity, alcoholism, depression etc are just another set of symptoms of the disease that has caused our economy to fail: a capitalist system that is benefitting fewer and fewer people.

    *********************************

    I could not agree more.

    But sadly people refuse to look at the root causes of problems & prefer to think of gimmicky cheap short term solutions that DONT WORK.

    Doing something about this alone would reduce peoples liklyhood to get into debt, reduce crime, single parents, drug addiction, unemployment, improve education standards, health... pretty much everything.

  • Comment number 20.

    IT used to be that you had no option, it was school dinners or nothing.

    Using real ingredients and not processed would be the right way to do it, but the emphasis on cost cutting and mass purchasing across regions makes this unworkable.

    Why not support local businesses and producers again and serve up food cooked properly in a proper canteen.

  • Comment number 21.

    People should eat what they like. Not be forced by government. Simple.

  • Comment number 22.

    #1 Toadinthehole

    Typical stupid naivety. Lifestyles most often produce the money for the free NHS that you enjoy.

    Those that smoke wanted to have their own private health service funded by cigarette duties to stop people like you moaning about how they are costing the NHS.

    Only it turned out that without the duty the NHS couldn't be funded on NI and Taxes alone. So the smokers would have ended with up a first class, 5 star health service and everyone else would have to make do with cheaper services, fewer resources and less hospitals.

    Obviously the government went eek and small minded individuals like you who wish to deny basic human freedoms declaim 'it's not fair!'.

    So you would seek to deny the man who pays into the NHS all his life any access just because you don't like the way he lives his life? How incredibly selfish and small minded.

    Anyone who pays into the NHS has a right to use its services.

    Lifestyle choice is and should be exactly that. Informed but your own decision.

  • Comment number 23.

    It's a pity, that on this site I can not agree with the comments of Number 14.. and reject the comments of Number 1. I do agree with Comment 14, but it means if anyone has not seen it they have to scrole up to see the comment which soon becomes too boring and losses views to the HYS web site..

  • Comment number 24.

    Smokers and the obese cheaper to care for, study shows

    Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

    It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars...

    ...The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

    On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

    Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

    The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

    The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.


    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

  • Comment number 25.

    Why make people healthier? We can't afford decent pensions, so let people live well and die young!

  • Comment number 26.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 27.

    The minister is a fool. As foolish as those parent who (with a little help from tabloid journalists) pushed pie and chips through the school railings.

    There is nothing wrong with the Jamie Oliver approach - the problem is with cowardly head teachers, politicians and parents who won't just take the bull by the horns and go for it. Schools are not there to to nursemaid the kids, they are their to educate. And there is no reason why that should not include what they eat.

    Put school dinners on the National Curriculum.

    "But the kids just go out of school at lunch and buy at the local cafe!"

    What the heck are kids, especially under 14, doing out of the school in the first place?

    "But my little darling Doesn't like green stuff!!!"

    Tough. About time your little Darling learned to like green stuff.

    And about time the minister stopped trying to placate whining parents.

  • Comment number 28.

    7. At 3:25pm on 30 Jun 2010, druid2002 wrote:
    Will a Jamie 'real food' cooking regime work in schools? Yes.

    Is it cheaper than junk food? No.

    Does the Tory government care about cost more than health? Yes.

    Will they tackle boesity at school as a result? No.

    ---------

    I counter with:

    Will a real food regime work in schools? Yes.
    Is it cheaper than junk food? It could be.
    Does the Tory government care about cost more than health? Do you mean is the Tory government trying to find a way to provide affordable services and healthy answers without compromising other services? In as far as it can then Yes.
    Will they tackle boesity at school as a result? Is it their job to? Did parents hand over nutritional duties to the schools as well as educational? In which case do parents advise the schools of evening meals and breakfasts, evidence of exercise etc?

    Who ultimately is responsible for the well being of the child?

    According to Lefties like you who blame the Tories for everything, even though it is Labour who have been in charge for the last 13 years of obesity rise.....it is.

    Naughty Tories! Found guilty simply by existing, by the ill educated and envy driven, spite brigade.

    Pathetic.

  • Comment number 29.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 30.

    7. At 3:25pm on 30 Jun 2010, druid2002 wrote:

    Will a Jamie 'real food' cooking regime work in schools? Yes.

    Is it cheaper than junk food? No.

    Does the Tory government care about cost more than health? Yes.

    Will they tackle boesity at school as a result? No.

    ------------------------------

    Comments like the above say it all. Its not the parents fault, its the gov. Somehow the gov is ment to teach your kids healthy eating so they dont enjoy the burger and chips for tea.

    I wont go so far as to blame labour (although they take a share of the blame) but while they were in power the parents were taking less and less responsibility. Its your child, you look after it.

    Schools can only do so much and they often leave open the option for pack lunches, although this was sometimes stopped because kids were bringing rubbish.

    People complain of kids going to the chipy yet they are probably getting more exercise walking for their food than they get in a weeks interaction with parents.

    The gov didnt decide you should have a kid, you did. Take responsibility

  • Comment number 31.

    You need to educate people and provide alternatives. I know lots of things are bad for me, and that I should do more exercise, but the only person who can decide to change my lifestyle is me. People telling me what to do often has a negative effect, particularly when it seems patronising.
    Doctors for example often tell us to cut down on drinking, but don't do the same themselves. My next door neighbour is a doctor, and he has often told me of his drink fuelled days as a student doctor, and when we put out our rubbish for reycling he has at least twice as many alcohol bottles for recycling than I have.
    Our Countries public health is actually a lot better than it was 100 years ago or even 50 years, which is reflected in the fact the life expetency has increased. I know with better public health we could increase it further, but do we really want to. If everybody lives longer pensions would reduce even further, and we would have even more old people to be supported by a dwindling workforce. We would end up lots of improvised but slightly fitter pensioners.

  • Comment number 32.

    We've had years of nanny stateism being thrust upon us.

    We need to relearn what responsibility means. Looks like this is a step in the right direction.

  • Comment number 33.

    26. At 4:21pm on 30 Jun 2010, Willo wrote:
    What works is people taking responsibility for their own health.

    this is ridiculous.

    So the person who at age 60 starts to get diabetes because of his lifestyle isn't entitled to medication? Even though he has paid into the NHS for the last 40 years?

    No wonder people end up with high blood pressures.

    This holier than thou attitude that some of you have is breathtaking.

    Have any of you stopped to consider that maybe the way you live your life should be balanced with your health not compromised for the sake of it. The health nuts that I see are usually miserable and look accusingly at everyone else who seems to be enjoying their sinful repasts.

    get over it people - you have no choice, you are going to die.

    So might as well live it up and enjoy while you have it.

    Reaching for that extra 20 years and ending up dribbling alone in an armchair might not be worth it. What's more it isn't guaranteed.

  • Comment number 34.

    Give me the facts let me make my decisions. If I choose not to want an extra few years lying in my own filth in some dingy 'care' home being looked after by minimum wage unskilled teeneagers then so be it.

  • Comment number 35.

    When I was a teacher (1970s/80s), pupils had cans of dog food & cat food for lunch & were none the worse for it; in fact, they were the better for it because it imbued them with animal spirits & rude health! The likes of Jamie Oliver & the Health Secretary are the ones who should be consigned to the rubbish bin!

  • Comment number 36.

    Maybe the take up of school meals has fallen not because of the new content but because of the recession? It is cheaper to send a child to school with a packed lunch. In any event, perhaps the point is not whether it will improve the nation's health if schools provide healthy food. Perhaps the point is that it is IMMORAL for schools to provide children with unhealthy food.

  • Comment number 37.

    29. At 4:34pm on 30 Jun 2010, Willo wrote:
    Do some contributors here really have difficulty distinguishing between accidents and self-inflicted health issues? Or are they disingenuously covering their own weaknesses?

    Good grief. You just don't get it - Is it lifestyle envy?

    Do see people out enjoying themselves and think, that's not fair! They should be miserable and be more cost effective.

    Sad.

    Of course it could be more sensible to accept that people in this country have a certain lifestyle and provide for it.

    I don't know by say providing a service that is paid for out of taxes and oh I know lets put a tax called duty on the most harmful lifestyle substances to balance the costs that can be associated with that lifestyle choice.

    Oh hang on - that's how it works now. Except that that amount of duty raised is bigger than the entire NHS budget. Excellent, more money for coffee and biscuits.

  • Comment number 38.

    Jamie Oliver is a chubby cook who cannot express himself intelligibly. His job is to cook food. What are his qualifications as a nutritionist, or a paediatrician, for example? None? What a surprise.

    If you went into a restaurant and ordered a meal, would you expect the chef to come to your table and lecture you on what you should or should not be eating? I think you might be a trifle (pun intended) put out if he did, and would take your custom elsewhere.

    We have reached a point in the UK where "celebrity chefs" (surely a misnomer) are treated with ridiculous seriousness. These people are cooks with a fancy name. All up and down the country, and the world, people cook food every day - such people are not given this ludicrous "celebrity" status, with the media hanging onto their every utterance. Why a handful of cooks are singled out for this treatment I do not know.

    On the question of obesity, they keep changing the definition to make averyone appear to be obese. I live on a bus route and a road that leads to a school, so I regularly see children going to school. For every fat child there are loads of others who are nothing of the sort.

    The previous control-freak government came up with this obesity nonsense so as to dictate to everyone in yet another area of their lives. Some people are tall, some are short, some are thin, some are fat, that is the way it has always been - they don't make a standardised human being, although no doubt it would suit business if they did. Get used to it. We are all shapes and sizes and our life spans vary enormously. Thin, healthy people who exercise regularly drop dead before their time (I have known some); fat, lazy smokers live for decades.

    It is not the business of anyone, Government, employer, "celebrity chef" or anyone else to dictate how people live their lives and I thought the new Government had promised an end to all this. We shall all live until we die, and we shall all die, so leave us alone to get on with it and concentrate on the things that matter, such as running the country, reducing the deficit and NOT interfering in the affairs of any other nation. If governments and celebrity chefs have sufficient time on their hands to try to run everyone else's lives for them, then they are not putting enough time and effort into doing the jobs they are well paid to do.

  • Comment number 39.

    What exactly is meant by the "the Jamie Oliver approach"? Why can't the BBC Have Your Say Team ever be precise?

    If it means nagging people into feeling guilty it won't work.

    However, I don't think that was Jamie Oliver's approach.

    His approach was revealing how disgusting some of these "food products" like turkey twizzlers aimed at children are and how you can make delicious nutritious food which children will like once they get the taste for it.

    I am very grateful to Mr Oliver that my child is now less likely to be offered muck like "turkey twizzlers" at school and I certainly hope Andrew Lansley doesn't change that.

    The trouble is that children's taste-buds need a bit of education to learn to appreciate the finer things in life, and that takes time and effort which a lot of parents either don't have or don't want to give. Not only that: the huge junk food (and drink) industry is relentlessly exploiting children through advertising. Just look at the sponsors of the World Cup!

    I think the situation for adults is quite different. Please take noxious ingredients like trans fats out of food but ultimately if I want to eat unhealthily that is up to me.

  • Comment number 40.

    It's too late for some but if schools brought back cookery, formerly known as Domestic Science lessons pupils would atually learn how to cook using fresh ingredients. Even primary school children could undertake simple cooking.

    Lack of knowledge and the ease with which junk food can be accessed has led to a diet high in salt, sugar, fats and worst of all additives.

    It is NOT expensive to cook nutritious food, it just takes a bit of planning and it certainly isn't expensive to provide a god quality packed lunch.

    Obviously people need to take more responsibility for the health of their children but unfortunately there are those who wouldn't recognise a healthy meal if it was put before them and probably wouldn't eat it as there are no chips, burgers or sauce.

    Bring back school canteens and school cooks.

  • Comment number 41.

    Did the human race ever learn to people a potatoe?

  • Comment number 42.

    We have got to make it clear to people, one way or another, that their health is their responsibility; what they eat, their exercise and habits. We cannot continue funding the NHS to support optional treatments for people that have inflicted bad health on themselves. Also these people are economically inactive or living on benefits because of their poor health. For instance why should we fund IVF if the people are overweight, heavy smokers and drinkers and are not willing to change their lifestyle

  • Comment number 43.

    · 29. At 4:34pm on 30 Jun 2010, Willo wrote:
    Do some contributors here really have difficulty distinguishing between accidents and self-inflicted health issues? Or are they disingenuously covering their own weaknesses?

    If I have an accident skiing, cycling or playing rugby that is totally different from developing an illness through years of smoking or over-eating. The effects of one are immediate and irreversible, while the other comes on gradually and can be cured at any time, should the sufferer choose to do so.

    ####################################

    Ok

    How about Knee and Hip replacement due to long-term sporting use, they are defiantly avoidable, should you choose to do so?

    How about Melanoma due to holidays in the sun, they are defiantly avoidable, should you choose to do so.

    How about heart attacks because of eating Red Meat, that is avoidable, should you choose to do so?


    The list is endless, what self-inflicted conditions would you allow?





  • Comment number 44.

    "What makes you take the healthy approach?" (BBC).
    People are probably sick of hearing me say this - and it annoys me too - but:

    Just like crime, bad-behaviour, bad-manners, bad atitudes, delinquency, alcohol-abuse, drug-abuse, cruelty, laziness, benefit-dependency, smoking, bad-eating, failure in education and most of the other negative things we can think of - by the time Children join Society via school - the seeds of bad-parenting have ALREADY set those children in their ways, be it smoking, drinking, atiitudes - whatever.

    No matter what the State does, it is on a snowball to hell when it comes to changing peoples atitudes & behaviour - UNTIL Parents are FORCED to raise their Children responsibly from BIRTH.

    Why can Goverments NOT see this?
    How long are the curses of PC, HR & irresponsible parents going to be allowed to continue this rot to our Society? It's time for Politicians to DO what they're paid to do or get out. Either that, or get rid of the PC nonsense that bad Parents hide behind when it comes to responsibility for their childs upbringing...

  • Comment number 45.

    Advice is fine, lecturing is counterproductive.

    To those who are happy to take the contributions of others and deny them the health service they paid for, simply because you disapprove of their lifestyle, then shame on you. Grab grab grab for me me me is all we seem to see these days. It is a kitty provided according to means, and offered to those in need. Start rationing it and before long there'll soon be reasons why you don't qualify either.

  • Comment number 46.

    Maybe good news - I remain to be convinced that anyhting will change, as obesity is big business and fear of it was also used by the last Govt as a key element of their control and surveillance agenda. It's one thing to claim to want less involvement in the lives of individuals and quite another to relinquish the associated power. I for one have always been a critic of the assertion, apparently common in public health ivory towers, that 'fat people are only fat because they don't know they're fat, or don't know it's baaaad to be fat, and it's the job of the State to educate them and if necessary enforce their compliance'. I prefer the idea that, considering the way this topic is reported and treated, if shame were a successful weight-loss motivator there wouldn't be a fat person to be found anywhere in Britain. Or put differently, and to quote Miss Conduct of the Boston Globe 'if you believe that fat people have no self control, consider that they haven't killed you yet'. History has shown that you can, after all, only oppress a group so far.

    As Paul Campos states: 'A diet is a cure that doesn't work for a disease that doesn't exist... the only way to win the war on obesity is to stop fighting it'. There are numerous studies and works that argue that both the scale and potential implications of the 'obesity epidemic', which remember is based on the BMI, have been deliberately misrepresented and exaggerated, with risk factors presented as certainties and worst case scenarios accepted as inevitabilities even at Ministerial level and even against a backdrop of rising life expectancy and better health. The one-sided nature of the reportage hasn't helped; even the fact that there are more studies that conclude so-called obesity to be a threat than a benign genetic variation (and there are plenty of the latter too) owes much to the way such research is funded.

    'Shame and blame', or stigmatising fat people to the degree they fall into line, may be the favoured approach of Jamie Oliver (probably because it makes good TV), the NOF (because it grabs headlines) and even the DOH. However it has been categorically disproven as an effective approach by various researchers including the Rudd Center at Yale University, which has linked the stereotyping of and discrimination against larger people with numerous negative psychological and health outcomes, to the point that it becomes difficult to tell which conditions are 'obesity-related' and which are in fact born of the appalling way fat people are encouraged to be treated by society, Government and the medical profession, usually with the public's blessing.

    I for one am encouraged by this move; maybe one day we'll even see a retreat from the current medical obsession with pathologising natural human variations, and a recognition that whatever the Left (particularly the BBC and Guardian) may think, there are both far worse things to be than fat and many many things over which we have far more control and which are far more likely to lead to a premature death than being a few pounds over the 'ideal' line on a chart invented 200 years ago and specifically NOT intended to be used to assess the overall health of individuals. Certainly I hope that my view that being a few pounds above an increasingly rigid 'norm' is no grounds at all for social services involvement, accusations of neglect or the removal of otherwise happy kids from loving homes into the uncertainties of State care, accompanied by the imposition of an unhealthy conflation of slimness with happiness, health and opportunity, becomes once again regarded as commonsense rather than fringe extremism as at present.

  • Comment number 47.

    The Jamie Oliver approach will not work in tackling public health problems like obesity and smoking, the health secretary says. What approach will work?
    A return to rationing, alcohol prohibition, a total ban on all tobacco products and mandatory death sentences for all convicted drug pushers and dealers.

  • Comment number 48.

    Look, we're confusing two very different problems here by making the classic mistake of treating children as though they are adults.

    Treating obesity and other health problems in adults is a matter of education but also personal responsibility. Tell me how many calories, grams of fat etc are in various foods then let me decide how much to eat. At the end of the day, so long as I am fully informed of the risks and fully aware of what I'm doing then what I end up doing is my business.

    As for ludicrous 'don't get treatment for your lifestyle' arguments, does this mean that if my lifestlye choice is to go to gym or go mountain biking then I shouldn't get treatment if I have an accident and break my leg? So long as we accurately tax every 'lifestyle choice' so that none of them place a net burden on the NHS then there's no reason to ban anything.

    However, Jamie Oliver started his career and this debate talking about children and school dinners which is an entirely different argument. Children are not responsible for themselves. This is why we don't let them vote, marry, drink alcohol or any of the other privileges that we withold until we deem them mature enough to be aware of and deal with the consequences.

    The idea that we can therefore fill school cafeterias with crap food (and I remember from my days that it was crap, both in quality and nutritional value) and then somehow blame parents for these kids eating poorly is absurd. The parents can only be responsible for the meals they provide the kids. If the kids are on school dinners and all they're funded for is terrible, reheated, nutritionally vacant garbage they how are we any better than the lazy parent who thinks getting a side of Coleslaw next to a bucket of fried chicken consitutes a balanced meal?

    Responsibility lies with those in positions of responsibility. When you are responsible for yourself, then education and personal accountability is key. When you are responsible for someone else, it is up to you to make that meal as healthy and valuable as possible, whether you're a parent cooking evening tea or a minister and governor ensuring that everyone between you and the student has the funds and training available to make that meal a good one.

  • Comment number 49.

    Most medical problems today are wholly or partly self-inflicted (classifying damage to kids due to parental stupidity, negligence or incompetence).

    Hence the Jamie Oliver method will not work.

    Deportation might, though.

  • Comment number 50.

    It works for Jamie Oliver, he's minted.

  • Comment number 51.

    Jamie Oliver brought funding into schools meals but overlooked the fact that kids will not switch to healthy foods easily. Nor will parents. Many schools were already introducing healthy food, in some cases the publicity generated worked against this. I know of schools that had complaints from parents when they removed the sweet vending machines. Suddenly when the TV shows hit parents wanted to know that the school WOULD still serve junk food because they were afraid their kids wouldn't eat otherwise. But you have to make a start and recognise that it will takes long time to change eating habits. Parents have to stand their ground in this change process and have to learn about food generally and the calories in calories out effect.

  • Comment number 52.

    · 49. At 5:30pm on 30 Jun 2010, Wiser than you wrote:
    Most medical problems today are wholly or partly self-inflicted (classifying damage to kids due to parental stupidity, negligence or incompetence).

    Hence the Jamie Oliver method will not work.

    Deportation might, though.

    ###################################

    Once again we have to suffer the totally incorrect, biased, incompetent twittering of WTY

    Your comment is based on the unsubstantiated wanderings of a deluded mind.

    Just for once could you try a make a comment that is based of fact not superstition?




  • Comment number 53.

    I would respond to some comments that there was actually a direct reduction in school meal take up when healthy food was introduced even where all charges were removed. Some parents would not work with schools to encourage their children to try healthy food but provided them with packed lunch (chocolate bars and the like) or "dinner money" - sweet money in actual fact.

  • Comment number 54.

    All but a very few true individuals are creatures of habit. Commerce relies on our predictability. So things that are dangerous are openly marketed in every quarter. Even those illegal non advertised groceries (dope and the like) are still very popular even though much sadness and death is caused by their consumption. My only conclusion is that most people are stupid dumb morons who are human in form only and deserve all they get by indulging in harmful pursuits. As for Mr Oliver he is simply a showman of very little real substance, a performer for the legal groceries kitchen wear and buyable lifestyles currently available in the shops.

  • Comment number 55.

    People do need to be told that they have unhealthy life styles. The only way you can do that is tell them . 'Lecturing' is an emotive word but giving people advice is more correct.

  • Comment number 56.

    If I had amassed a £47 million pound fortune from just been on TV then I am quite sure that I could eat the best food...

  • Comment number 57.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 58.

    Post 1 has hit the nail on the head.

    Lansley should be sacked. This hardly the message we should be hearing from a Health Secretary, effectively condemning attempts to encourage healthy living.

  • Comment number 59.

    Off we go again, Tories in power and what do they propose? Stop giving our children healthy food. If their parents don't provide it then that is too bad. Each school will have to have their sandwich inspector and what will they do if the sandwich is only a bar of chocolate and a bag of chips? Take it away and let the kids go hungry? No, I can see the Tory-Libdem minds working, let's cut out school meals altogether, that will save millions and let the parents do what they want, too bad if the kids are getting even fatter and their teeth fall out. Mrs Thatcher cut out school milk and schools changed to selling sugary rich drinks. Drinking milk was no longer fashionable because of that measure, all because the Lady wanted to cut costs. This time the Tories do it again, using that lame excuse supported by the Sun, the Mirror and the Mail, that Janoe Oliver';s ideas are just rubbish and not economically viable. That school dinners went down is because the cost went up, there was no funding to train the cooks and many thoughtless parents, who spoil their brats, handed them money to go to the chip shop, often more money than the cost of the school meals. Many schools have done very well, particularly in primary schools. Many schools started cooking lessons where chefs from local restaurants came to give a hand. Of course, our Tory-Libdem won't know about that because good news never travels fast and is of no use to the media who only report fat mothers handing chips to fat children.

  • Comment number 60.

    Big question does the Health Secretary now what he is talking about.
    It has taken him a long time to make this statement.
    I believe Jamie Oliver is correct.

  • Comment number 61.

    Here we go again all the self righteous, sanctimonious, healthy living cranks will come to the fore. We moan because we are all living longer and they can't afford pensions and then we moan because we are all going to die young because we are eating unhealthy food. Some people are over weight, so what they always have been, it is by no means proved that they live shorter lives. One reason for an increase in weight could be immigration. People who have come from countries that within a short period of time faced starvation tend to put on weight efficiently and survived. Genetics plays a large part in body shape so if we have large numbers from these deprived areas of the world there is a good chance that they will be genetically predisposed to gain weight.
    Having lost a very close family member recently at the age of 60 who was exceptionally fit and because of his involvement with international sport had ben passed as very fit medically, I take all this talk of being able to predict health and longevity as suspicious. Of course Jamie Oliver is going to push his interest, it's made him a fortune, but whether it is true or not it's another matter.
    It was once stated that thin people lived longer because they noticed that many old people were thin, When they enquired further they looked at old photos and noticed that many of these people had been much fatter when they were middle aged. It was because older people digested food less efficiently that they were thinner. Imn the past the Chinese said that people with big ears lived longer. It was then realised that ears are the one part of the body that continues growing
    Humans have always had a need to feel righteous and smug thinking that if they obey the rules they will live a long life, but as with religion it doesn't work like that. The good living can get sick and die even before the wicked sinners

  • Comment number 62.

    To add to my last (58), if I have an accident down to rock climbing, skiing, etc then guess what:
    a) it's a lot less likely to happen than being fat leading to a heart attack.
    b) these activities make me fitter and alot more productive generally.
    c) I have insurance to cover these eventualities.

    Let's not get confused between positive and negative lifestyle choices. Unhealthy people are less productive and less joy to be around, simples.

  • Comment number 63.

    I don't know what the 'Jamie Oliver approach' is, I've never listened to him, but I find the Government's double standards to be totally unacceptable. The Government campaigns against smoking and excessive alcohol drinking whilst being happy to take £billions in tax from both of them.

    I have no axe to grind either way, because I neither smoke nor drink alcohol, but if these two things are so deleterious to the nation's health, shouldn't the Government stop making money from them?

  • Comment number 64.

    Both of the Health Secretary's children attend an exclusive private junior school in Cambridge. The school dinners there are second to none. Pupils have to choose a food from each food group to put on their plate and chips are rarely on the menu. I have sampled these meals myself so I know what I am talking about. You might not get such a good meal at a restaurant! If the health Secretary's children had to eat lunch at some of the state schools in this country I suspect he would back Jamie Oliver's campaign rather than criticise it. Of course his comments wouldn't have anything to do with cutting back on spending in our schools would it?!!! Woo.

  • Comment number 65.

    49 wrote: "Most medical problems today are wholly or partly self-inflicted (classifying damage to kids due to parental stupidity, negligence or incompetence).

    Hence the Jamie Oliver method will not work.

    Deportation might, though"

    I have not read a more stupid reply. Children deserve to be protected from their thoughtless parents and people with views like yours. It will take a generation to reform eating habits in families where the chip pan is the best friend. A lot of effort has gone into that already but as long as there are people in this country who make remarks like you and with a government as we now have in place who have total disregard for the rights of kids to receive healthy meals and be educated to produce these themselves, the srtruggle will go on.

  • Comment number 66.

    The conservative health secretary Lecturing the public on unhealthy life styles now that is rich.
    He had his thatched Tudor cottage renovated at cost of £4000 at the tax payers expense before selling it for £433,00
    2009 he received £21,000 in political funding from John Nash, the chairman of Care UK, one of the largest private healthcare providers in the UK, who stands to benefit considerably from Conservative health policies.
    claimed the "good things" from a recession included people being able to spend more time with their families.
    And he worth £700,000.

  • Comment number 67.

    Like it or not, the Health Secratary got it 100% right.
    Jamie Oliver may well have improved the standard of school meals, but nobody likes them and fewer people eat them.
    What is evident is the fact that most of those who were seen on the news smuggling money and food into their kids obviously have too much money, and so their benefit checks should be reduced accordingly. They are afterall the ones who these meals were for, as the rest of the kids do not have to eat school meals.
    Also, since when does anybody get the right to dictate what we can and cannot eat, or indeed whether my kids can leave the school premises oon a lunchtime. I always returned home for my lunch and my kids will do the same. To hell with any headmaster/mistress that seems to think they can dictate otherwise.

  • Comment number 68.

    3. At 3:15pm on 30 Jun 2010, Dan_Dover wrote:

    ...

    Frankly obesity, alcoholism, depression etc are just another set of symptoms of the disease that has caused our economy to fail: a capitalist system that is benefitting fewer and fewer people.

    .

    Er, you couldn't be more wrong - alcoholism was so bad in the Communist USSR it started to cause real damage to the life expectancy rate. Suicide is highest amongst the very socialistic Scandinavian nations.

    Instead, perhaps you should blame something else? Thatcher, The Daily Mail or Rupert Murdoch seem to be the cause of all the worlds ills amongst the more hysterical less imaginative lefties.

  • Comment number 69.

    "28. At 4:30pm on 30 Jun 2010, sircomespect wrote:
    I counter with:

    Will a real food regime work in schools? Yes.
    Is it cheaper than junk food? It could be.
    Does the Tory government care about cost more than health? Do you mean is the Tory government trying to find a way to provide affordable services and healthy answers without compromising other services? In as far as it can then Yes.
    Will they tackle boesity at school as a result? Is it their job to? Did parents hand over nutritional duties to the schools as well as educational? In which case do parents advise the schools of evening meals and breakfasts, evidence of exercise etc?

    Who ultimately is responsible for the well being of the child?

    According to Lefties like you who blame the Tories for everything, even though it is Labour who have been in charge for the last 13 years of obesity rise.....it is.

    Naughty Tories! Found guilty simply by existing, by the ill educated and envy driven, spite brigade.

    Pathetic."

    Thank you Mr Bigot, may I counter with some (hopefully) sensible comments to knock you off your ivory tower?

    Healthy meals MUST be served at school. This serves as a firm base in the knowledge that the feckless parents can at least attempt to continue this trend at home IF the kids get used to the proper food of old-they may actually nag for it!

    As for the tory gripe - let's get this straight - the aim of the conservatives are to 'conserve'! it's in the title! So yes if they view junk food as cheaper than healthy food then they will go for it!


    If healthy food was cheaper than junk food then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all and there would be no problem!

    You obviously haven't read this article because the statements being made are 'why bother drumming home health message because it is now counter productive!' ergo let's scrap healthy meals? It doesn't make sense and neither do you sir!

  • Comment number 70.

    Not sure the minister knows what he is going on about. So what, if the number of children eating school meals has gone down since the introduction of healthy school meals. You could also look at the same numbers from the point of view that the number of children eating healthy school meals has gone up (because all those children who are still eating school meals are now eating healthy meals!)

    He's right in saying that the Jamie Oliver approach is not a silver bullet for health problems, though. Individual responsibility plays a major role, but only offering healthy school meals its is part of the solution, and is the responsible thing for schools to do.

    Whether or not parents encourage their children to eat healthily is up to them.

  • Comment number 71.

    .....sure, ban healthy food at schools, but at the same time heavily tax junk food outlets.

  • Comment number 72.

    I am absolutely disgusted that Jamie Oliver's approach has been bad mouthed, he has been the first to challenge school meals and made a huge ripple in the ocean that is healthy eating. He had the confidence to try to tackle poor quality school meals and the re-education of children's dietary habits. Unfortunately as he found out he is not simply about changing children's eating habits but re-educating a society. As a teacher I still find it fascinating that children do not know the difference between fruit and vegetables and some do not recognise even the most common vegetables. Jamie Oliver was never going to change everyone's attitude but at least he had the guts to make a start. I think he deserves credit for his efforts.

  • Comment number 73.

    Do we really want everybody to live into their 80's and 90's, as it put even more pressure on pensions. If people adopted a healthier lifestyle it will not actually save the NHS any money, it simple mean that they will have to deal with different health issues. For example if someone dies of cancer because of smoking the NHS probably incurs a cost in trying to treat him, whereas if he had never smoked he might live a bit longer, but be in poverty as the country can not afford to pay a decent pension, and then get dementia and have to be treated by the NHS for several years until they die.

  • Comment number 74.

    Andrew Lansley is a career politician who gained a degree in politics and has never worked outside Westminster.

    He knows as much about nutrition as I know about quantum mechanics, and I'm an accountant.

    Ignore the idiot!

  • Comment number 75.

    No

  • Comment number 76.

    Here's a thought:

    There are 365 days in a year, and most people have three meals a day, that's 1095 meals per annum.

    How many schooldays are there? (I don't know, my daughter is grown up now). Certainly far fewer than 365 - let's say for argument's sake 180 although I rather suspect the true figure is even lower.

    School dinners constitute 1 meal per day, so that's say 180 as a percentage of 1095 - about 16%, so hardly significant.

    This debate reminds me of the last government's obsession with plastic bags and tungsten light-bulbs, while ignoring the way ministers constantly flew around the world to attend pointless conferences of one sort or another.

    A sense of proportion is missing here.

  • Comment number 77.

    "72. At 6:45pm on 30 Jun 2010, loti wrote:
    I am absolutely disgusted that Jamie Oliver's approach has been bad mouthed, he has been the first to challenge school meals and made a huge ripple in the ocean that is healthy eating. He had the confidence to try to tackle poor quality school meals and the re-education of children's dietary habits. Unfortunately as he found out he is not simply about changing children's eating habits but re-educating a society. As a teacher I still find it fascinating that children do not know the difference between fruit and vegetables and some do not recognise even the most common vegetables. Jamie Oliver was never going to change everyone's attitude but at least he had the guts to make a start. I think he deserves credit for his efforts."

    Well said - given that school dinners were brought in to ensure children had a "healthy meal" during the war it seems ridiculous that we now feel it is alright to serve poor quality, junk food to our children. As a tax payer I want children to get the best available. Go into any private school dining room they don't get junk, so why should State school pupils?

  • Comment number 78.

    Does Andrew Lansley have a better idea? Jamie Oliver is doing his best to tackle a genuine problem. Hats off to him.

    The fact that some parents (I think in Rotherham) were pushing fast-food through the railings to their children demonstrates the care that they have for their children - probably very genuine, but too stupid to realise the damage they are doing.

    If the children were at boarding school they would eat the food the school provided.

    So many people don't want Jamie Oliver to tell them what to do (actually, he doesn't) - so if someone tells you not to put your hand in the fire, do you then deliberately put your hand in the fire?

    When I was growing up in the late 50s through to 1970 there were no obese people, other than those with a genuine medical problem, such as thyroid issues. Now we need special equipment for the NHS so that they can be loaded into ambulances, special hospital beds.

    The Conservatives do seem to put their feet in it with food and children - remember the beef burger to demonstrate how safe beef was?

    So come on - does anyone have a better idea? At least let the children have a chance to grow up and THEN decide that they want to be obese or remain slender.

  • Comment number 79.

    Did the human race ever learn to peel a potatoe?

  • Comment number 80.

    "Any one who trys' to stop our children eating harmful foods, is up against a massive powerful lobby, not just the fast food merchants but many food factory s' who are part of international companys with many very powerful friends. Jamie Oliver is only a T,V. chief a very nice bloke ,with a mission its not a fair fight.

  • Comment number 81.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 82.


    Once upon a time there were school dinners that were quite healthy even if a bit unpopular.

    Then our dear saint Thatcher decided that insisting on nutritional standards was the nanny state and we ended up with junk school dinners. The junk school dinners that most who are now parents grew up on at school. So, for many, it was junk food at school and junk food at home.

    At least the Jamie Oliver approach meant that kids were beginning to get use to having at least some decent fruit and veg. Looks like were going to scupper that because Turkey twizlers are the cheaper option and parade out facetious arguments to back it up.

    Excuse me. But when I was a kid in the 60's I ate what I was told by my parents, and I ate what I was given at school. Kid's don't make rational choices about food. That's what (amongst other things) parents are for, to make the rational decisions that the children wouldn't make for themselves.

    Now, when they are at school, the school is by law in loco parentis. Just because some of the kids have stupid lazy ignorant parents, the school isn't supposed to behave like stupid lazy ignorant parents. The schools should make the kids eat properly while they are in the school's care.



  • Comment number 83.

    1. At 3:05pm on 30 Jun 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:

    "Stop paying for treatment on the NHS for problems which are down to "life style" choices. Take away benefits from obese people who refuse to help themselves. Most (not all) obesity is down to the life style choices, as is most lung cancer (although again not all) down to the effects of smoking.

    Stop "rewarding" people for being stupid, then these people can do as they like with out burdening the rest of us with the clean up bill."

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    As an overweight smoker who is also a single male, I agree entirely, we should stop paying for NHS treatment for people's lifestyle choices, let's start with the lifestyle choice of getting pregnant and having kids shall we?

    I suffer from sleep aponea because of my weight, that has cost the NHS about £800 for a CPAP machine, nine 20 minute hospital appointments in the last 7 years (6 in the first 2 years, 3 in the last 5) and about £20 worth of replacement parts a year for the machine.

    Apart from for my aponea, a couple of visits to my GP for sciatica caused by a disc damaged playing rugby when I was 17 and one incidence of a stomach virus that most of Birmingham seemed to catch, I haven't cost the NHS anything in 20 years.

    Oh and I don't receive any benefits, I work full time, 42.5 hours a week in a warehouse.

  • Comment number 84.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 85.

    Does the Jamie Oliver approach work?
    Fat lazy Parent.
    Chances are Fat lazy kid.
    The only way we used to break this spiral was at School.
    Since the 80s big business got involved in our Education system.
    Hence we have generations of kids that cann't cook and live on Take-aways.

  • Comment number 86.

    Our beautifully designed bodies are not designed to last forever, no matter how perfect our lifestyle, diet, or whatever else anyone may include in 'overcoming imperfection delivery'. That is why we have doctors, nurses, medicines, drugs, and all the stuff that goes with them. Anyone would think there was a solution to every damned thing on this planet the way people go on about things. Well folks, think again, there isn't.

    So if you want to be a 'god' player then go right ahead but remember that you will not be deciding your own fate the moment things go wrong for you. Oh, and another thing, I will not be bothering you thank you very much, there are much better ways to go out with a 'bang'.

  • Comment number 87.

    78. At 7:50pm on 30 Jun 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:

    " When I was growing up in the late 50s through to 1970 there were no obese people, other than those with a genuine medical problem, such as thyroid issues. Now we need special equipment for the NHS so that they can be loaded into ambulances, special hospital beds. "


    What absolute rubbish. Looking at my junior school photo 1950's there are two or three fat children, exactly the same as in my granddaughter's picture this year. I can clearly remember one old man in our village dying at a ripe old age and they had to take him out of the large upatairs window because he was too big to get dowwn the stairs. Some children get fat in inner cities but they have nowhere to excercise. If the government really cared they would subsidise sports centres and make them cheap to use.

  • Comment number 88.

    Darwin had the theory of natural selection - the weakest die out. Poor people are poor for a reason. They get obese, abuse alcohol and smoke more than wealthy people because they are less educated and have inferior intelligences - hence the fact they are poor. It is a vicious circle. If people CHOOSE to lead unhealthy lives despite the billions spent on education and government incentives (and everyone is entitled to a free state education in the UK) then it is their right. The solution is that they should sign a document when visiting their GP, agreeing to a "3 strikes and your out" policy whereby they can continue to live how they choose over the age of 18, but will not expect the NHS to pay for any illness resulting from their lifestyle CHOICES.
    End of.

  • Comment number 89.

    When fat people get ill and go to the doctor, the doctor should tell them to lose weight. Or in the case of children, the doctor should tell their parents to get their child's weight down. That advice goes in their medical record. If they're back at the doctor's surgery again a year later, and they haven't lost weight, then they pay for their treatment. Same with smoking - if you make no effort to stop smoking, you pay for your treatment. Similarly if you land up in A&E drunk on a Friday night, you pay for your treatment.

    The whole argument that the collective misery of the UK is making people eat "comfort food" or smoke and drink for "release" is rubbish. Smoking, drinking, junk food and obesity all make you MORE depressed, not less.

  • Comment number 90.

    I made my decision about smoking back in 1963. There were three reasons for that, one was cost, one was the foul taste, the third was the early reports of the Lung Cancer connection.
    My decisions on food were a result of advice from the Doctor after my Landlady caused my stomach problems with her unhealthy meals.
    Celebrities such as Jamie Oliver had no effect!

  • Comment number 91.

    The Jamie Oliver approach will not work in tackling public health problems like obesity and smoking, the health secretary says. What approach does work?

    ----------------------

    So the Dynamic Duo have no idea and can't think for themelves? And some of the population, although not the majority, voted for these clowns? It kind of says it all doesn't it?

    And why should I or anyone give them ideas? If they want ideas they are going to have to pay for it. I'm fed up of people money off of my back, get some work done youselves you work-shy fops.

  • Comment number 92.

    Question is why bother? If junk food,booze.and cigarettes are band we could not live without the tax income which props up the NHS and pays for our pensions.

    Getting people to live longer costs money in pensions????

  • Comment number 93.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 94.

    There is no need to lecture. I'm not sure that is Jamie Oliver does.

    What people should be given is facts about the relationship between good nutrition, exercise and good health. Good food preparation ideas are also useful. There is no need to say 'Don't do this.' It is much easier and more encouraging to reinforce positively. In my children's school children who consistently eat healthy packed lunches get complimentary vouchers for SubWay. Children are allowed to bring and eat what they want.

    Carrots not sticks!!

  • Comment number 95.

    Perhaps some of "nanny state" "choice" "it's a democracy" merchants here would like to see parents giving primary kids cheap booze, skunk cannabis, herion, pornography, sadistic slasher movies, and knives at the school fence.

    Unfortunately, for far too many, these are all available at home, along with the junk food. So if that's the kid's "choice" why should the "nanny state" boss us about and not let all this go on at school too! It's a democracy after all...

  • Comment number 96.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 97.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 98.

    I fear that this new health minister is not up to the job if he analyses Jamie Oliver's Actions on school meals in this manner he really has not grasped the reasons and effects.
    Of course school meals take up have dropped . The pupils taste buds have to be re- educated to enjoy real wholesome food.

  • Comment number 99.

    11. At 3:28pm on 30 Jun 2010, Gary H wrote:
    Tory logic. Errr.... ok then, lets tell everyone to eat cream cakes, and fatty foods with a high sugar content. That way we'll all be healthy.
    ____________________________
    Think about it, if the current generation of unhealthy binge drinking/burger popping/smoke infused human beings do exactly that, the govt will save a whole heap on pensions in the future,benefits and child support for the kids they wont have. Its called natural selection. I wouldnt worry too much about the NHS costs, I expect the Chancellor (who has no experience of being health secretary ) to introduce work houses for those who are less than perfect individuals. Since he has already started with the sick and disabled he may as well include the obese, smokers, alcoholics and anyone else who might fall unwell from eating bad foods. He is half way there already why do you think he didnt up the cost of tabacco and alcohol and has dropped the extra charge on cider...? To look mr nice guy? for the good of the nations health? I think not!

  • Comment number 100.

    Labour were very good at lecturing people on health issues, particularly when the lectured were typical middle or low income families. I don't recall the same enthusiasm to lecture people on promiscuous sexual activity, especially where illnesses such as STD's or even aids is involved. Are these not the result of irresponsibility?

    Perhaps this comment won't get published, after all it's not targeting the right group is it.

 

Page 1 of 3

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.