YP Comment: Junk food ad ban won't work in isolation

IN years to come we will look back and wonder why it took so long to address the harm inflicted on children by junk food.

The proliferation of foods and drinks with high fat, salt and sugar contents is a major contributor to child obesity, which Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt yesterday called a “national emergency” and is costing Britain upwards of £5bn a year.

While opinion is divided as to whether sugar consumption is rising or falling, the “hidden” sugars commonly used within processed foods lead many to conclude that they must be on the up.

Three-quarters of adults in Yorkshire now support a proposed ban on junk food advertising before the 9pm watershed, hoping no doubt that it will begin to end the pressure placed on parents by “pester power” and bring a measure of control to youngsters’ eating habits.

However, a ban of this sort or a tax on sugary drinks, which Mr Hunt has refused to rule out, are quick-fix solutions that ignore other factors which contribute to this problem and the rise of lifestyle diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.

The diets of youngsters – and adults for that matter – are now of lower nutritional value. Calorie intakes have increased at the same time as levels of physical activity have fallen.

Some parents have lost the ability to say no to their children and, perhaps ignorant of the harm inflicted by the excessive eating of junk food, have failed to provide healthier alternatives.

A clampdown on food advertising or a so-called “sugar tax” will therefore have little impact if done in isolation.

Greater education on the importance of good nutrition and exercise for parents and children alike, along with a commitment from food producers to further reduce the sugar, salt and fat content of their products, must form part of the solution.

Back on the buses

Franchises could hold the key

CATCH a bus in London and it is hard not to be impressed by the seamless system in operation. Routes are fixed and familiar. Timetables reliable and at regular intervals. Being able to use one ticket – in the form of an Oyster Card – between different services is the icing on the cake.

This is made possible by the fact that services in the capital are provided under contract by private operators through a competitive tendering process. Transport for London plans routes, specifies service levels and monitors service quality.

In the rest of the country, it is a free-for-all. The deregulation of bus services outside London in the 1985 Transport Act means that firms are free to run whatever services they like and decide how much to charge passengers who use them. The legacy of this arrangement is that bus usage in West Yorkshire, for example, has fallen by 11 per cent in just 10 years.

It is why there is renewed support today from local authorities in Yorkshire for new franchising laws to be set out in the Government’s forthcoming Buses Bill.

Present operators who enjoy market dominance will understandably cry foul over franchising, and there are still questions to be answered over affordability. The numbers, however, don’t lie. Bus usage is falling at a time when traffic-clogged towns and cities need to persuade more people out of their cars.

The franchising system appears the best way to make public transport more appealing. It would also aid the poor progress made so far on extending smart ticketing outside the South East, one of the keys to a more integrated bus and rail system.

Much now depends on the Buses Bill to establish a framework that allows a London-style model to flourish here and provide the simple and seamless service enjoyed by millions in the capital.

Cathedral costs

Branching out to stay free

THE BBC comedy series Rev depicts a vicar who is under constant pressure to keep his church financially afloat as it threatens to crumble around him. The reality for those entrusted with the running of Yorkshire’s cathedrals is apparently little different.

Representatives tell of their battle to fund repairs, leading them to walk the tightrope between bringing in extra revenue through the staging of events while maintaining the sanctity of these places of worship.

Yet there is money available from agencies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage, while the Church of England has an investment fund of £6bn and an income that outstrips McDonald’s turnover in the UK.

Some may think it a pity that members of the clergy must also have a head for business, but it has become a clear requirement for the job of preserving these architectural gems alongside free access for those whose faith leads them to their doors.