About me
About me

‘Junk food’ to be banned in schools


Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

Ruth Kelly, the government minister determined to introduce something eponymous during her tenure, is apparently to ban junk food in schools. My question is: How?

Many schools are locked into implausibly long contracts with suppliers, from both catering and vending machine companies. These contracts include a great financial disincentive to early ending. So where’s the money coming from to end these contracts by September 2006? Or does the government plan to do something quite sneaky, like change the law to make it illegal to supply such items in schools, and hence make any company doing so a law-breaker? It’s an interesting idea, but it’s hardly true to Labour values.

Or is Kelly just going to leave the ending of the contracts as each individual school’s problem, possibly meaning that many will get into financial difficulty, and, by definition, all will have less to spend on, erm, education?

Or, in typical New Labour style, is this a well spun fudge? Kelly actually said…

So today I can announce that we will ban poor quality processed bangers and burgers being served in schools from next September.

It would therefore appear that good quality processed bangers and burgers will be fine. And which company is really ever going to admit to selling ‘poor’ quality ones? And how is this ‘quality’ going to be regulated and judged?

On the subject of vending machines, the words falling out of Kelly’s mouth were actually…

And because children need healthy options throughout the school day I can also announce that from next September no school will be able to have vending machines selling crisps, chocolates, or sugary fizzy drinks.

It’s noticeable, particularly on the fizzy drinks front, that most ranges have now switched over to production with ‘no added sugar’ – so presumably they don’t count as ‘sugary fizzy drinks’. And so on that front, there needs to be no change. As for crisps and chocolates, that seems fair enough, but it clearly doesn’t rule out all sweets, biscuits, and similarly unhealthy snacks. And, of course, school ‘tuck shops’ will still be able to sell all of these things – because they are not vending machines.

Perhaps I’m just being overly cynical, but it appears to me that Kelly has announced a headline-grabbing policy of precious little substance. How very New Labour.

This 736th post was filed under: News and Comment, Politics.

More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 4th December 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th November 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 5th October 2017)

Correction regarding comments (published 23rd June 2007)

Photo-a-day 159: Jubilee Corgi (published 7th June 2012)

Photo-a-day 241: Mixed messages (published 28th August 2012)

The medium is not the message (published 23rd April 2007)

Comments and responses

Comment from Energy

by Energy

Comment posted at 17:26 on 17th May 2007.

most soft drinks have high levels of benzine via sodium bezoit and are harmful to everyone not just kids.

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)

by sjhoward

Comment posted at 17:59 on 17th May 2007.

I’m not necessarily disputing what you say, but I’ve never seen any research anywhere that suggests that the tiny amounts of benzene in soft drinks have harmful effects on health – so I’d be interested to see it, if you have it available.

Comment from KD

by KD

Comment posted at 00:30 on 5th July 2007.

Your comment about tuck shops being allowed to sell unhealthy snacks is incorrect, I’m afraid. We run a once-a-week tuck shop in school and each child is allowed a maximum of 20p, which I think is reasonable and not at all detrimental to the children’s health. As of September this year we are only allowed to sell healthy snacks – raisins, nuts (dangerous – allergies), smoothies, unsalted popcorn (for goodness sake!) and such like. The problem is finding products within our price range that the children will enjoy. The food police are not considering individual cases like ours, nor are we able to compromise with a 10p allowance. At least the corner shop will be doing a roaring trade on Friday mornings replacing our little tuck shop…

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)

by sjhoward

Comment posted at 02:34 on 5th July 2007.

Well not so much wrong as outdated, I guess… If you’ve only had this problem now, then presumably you’ve been able to sell sugary snacks for the last two academic years, highlighting the fallacy of the original plan.

For what it’s worth, I think you’re right, this is a pretty stupid plan. We should teach kids responsibility for their diet, not ban things altogether. Smoking has always been banned in school – but that doesn’t stop adults smoking.

Compose a new comment


You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.

The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.