How bad are children's diets?

Research carried out by the British Heart Foundation suggests that many children no longer see a packet of crisps or a chocolate bar as a well-earned "treat". Such foods, the charity suggests, have simply become part of everyday life.

The whole concept of the treat now seems something of an anachronism in a society in which, some moan, we all expect instant gratification.

And children, it appears, are no exception. There is general consensus that children have more: more toys, more trips - and more tasty titbits.

"Food has become a way for parents to express their love for the child," says paediatric dietician Judy More.

"For those on lower incomes, it's also a very cheap way to do so - a bar of chocolate, a packet of crisps, these don't cost very much. But middle class families equally use low nutrient or less nutritious foods as a means to indulge their kids."

Don't eat that

The diet of the modern child has become a source of much soul-searching, if not, some suggest, moral panic.

Blamed not just for obesity, the sugar, salt and fat our youngsters pack away has been cited as the cause of a whole host of ills from lack of concentration in the classroom to violence on the streets.

THE FOOD COMMISSION RECOMMENDS:

• Boys aged 15-18: 107g of fat, 34g of saturated fat, 81g of sugar, 7g of salt
• Girls aged 15-18: 82g of fat, 26g of saturated fat, 62g of sugar, 5g of salt
• Boys aged 11-14: 86g of fat, 27g of saturated fat, 65g of sugar, 6g of salt
• Girls aged 11-14: 72g of fat, 23g of saturated fat, 54g of sugar, 6g of salt

But while food - and the fast variety in particular - may have become a convenient scapegoat for many modern anxieties, it is accepted that the diet of a child growing up in the 1950s was probably superior to that of his modern counterpart.

Despite the post-war shortages they ate more bread and milk, seeing to their fibre and calcium needs, and took in far less refined sugar in the form of soft drinks and sweets.

The most recent survey of the nation's nutrition suggests such sugars constitute 16% of an average's youngsters diet, significantly more than desirable.

Children 60 years ago probably ate in excess of today's recommended daily intake of fruit and vegetables - less than half of children now meet the much touted five portion rule.

The 1950s generation also ate more red meat, which is an important source of iron. Many UK children do not currently meet the recommended daily amount of the mineral, which is essential for growth and development.

But ironically, despite the fact that today's children no longer see crisps as a treat, the older generation probably consumed more fat.

It is here that some of the messages aimed at adult health may get confused with those for children today.

Red meat, cheese and full-fat milk are seen as no-go areas for grown-ups watching their weight, but, as part of a diet also rich in fruit and vegetables, they should feature in what a child consumes, nutritionists say.

Dairy products are rich in calcium, needed for growth and maintenance of bones and teeth.

Playtime

The 1950s child also took more exercise, and the balance between food and energy expenditure is a key one.

But however much a child runs around, if he is stoked up solely on crisps and chocolate his long-term health outlook is unlikely to be rosy. His teeth may not be much to look at either.


So what next?

Industry says it is making changes: the fat content of children's favourites like crisps has been reduced, while king size chocolate bars have gone.

But some parents want more government legislation to help them say no to "pester power" in the supermarkets, where chocolate and sweets, they complain, are so often placed right at their offspring's eye-level.

The British Heart Foundation is for instance demanding a full ban on marketing what they describe as "junk food" to children, and wants food companies to stop putting games and competitions on labels and websites.

But such government intervention can lead to accusations of nanny statism, and their impact is not always clear.

"It's too simplistic to blame advertising," says nutrition scientist Lisa Miles at the British Nutrition Foundation.

Note:- "There is room for the government to act, but families have a responsibility too. We shouldn't overestimate the scale of the problem, but for plenty of kids out there chips and chocolate have become a way of life - and that needs to change."

Many GPs Fail To Prioritise High-Risk Breast Cancer Groups

A third of family doctors are failing to fast-track women with suspected breast cancer who may be in need of the most urgent attention, according to a survey.

Women who have already had breast cancer and are in remission and those whose mother, sister or other close relative has had the disease should be referred promptly to a specialist if they arrive at the GP surgery with concerns, say guidelines from the National Institute for Healthcare and Clinical Excellence (Nice).

But a survey of 200 GPs by the charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer found that many family doctors did not prioritise these groups of women.

It found that 10% of GPs treat a suspect lump in the breast of a woman who has had a previous breast cancer as a routine case rather than making an urgent referral to a consultant. A third of GPs (34%) would also treat routinely a woman under the age of 30 who had found a lump in her breast and who had a family history of the disease.

In both sets of circumstances, the woman should be referred as an urgent case to a hospital specialist, according to Nice, and should be seen within two weeks under government guidelines.

Jeremy Hughes, the chief executive of Breakthrough Breast Cancer, described the survey results as "surprising".

"If you go to your GP and the GP says, 'Well there may be something of concern here [but] it may not be very important,' you don't go away and forget about it, you go away and worry," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The older a woman gets, the higher her chances of developing breast cancer. Four out of five cases are diagnosed in women aged 50 or over.

But the survey found that only 16% of family doctors "proactively" talk to female patients aged over 50 about the importance of breast awareness and the signs and symptoms of breast cancer. Among these cases, the patients initiated 80% of the conversations.

A small number of GPs (6%) surveyed by the charity think it is inappropriate to talk to a patient over 70 to let her know that she can still request a free breast screening appointment.

Last September, Gordon Brown announced that all patients, and not just those needing urgent attention, should be referred to a specialist for breast problems and be seen within two weeks of referral.

Hughes told the Today programme: "We know some women referred routinely to a specialist go on to be diagnosed with breast cancer and for any woman, waiting to hear whether or not they have breast cancer is an extremely stressful and worrying time.

"While we welcome the government commitment to implement this by December 2009, some areas of the country have already achieved a maximum two-week wait and we urge the NHS to ensure all areas are supported to achieve this."

Thousands TO Try To Quite Smoking

"As many as 1.2 million people in England could try to quit smoking in the New Year, figures suggest."

Cancer Research UK analysis of smoking trends since 2006 found January was the most popular month to quit, with an average of one in eight smokers trying.

The charity also said those who tried in January tended to be more successful than those trying in other months.

The NHS is launching a campaign to raise awareness of the free support methods available to help smokers quit. In the New Year a series of "Getting Off Cigarettes" adverts will highlight the range of free stop-smoking support provided by the NHS. The last available figures showed around 24% of adults in England smoked. With willpower alone, the chances of success are very small Professor Robert West The NHS Information Centre reported in September that more people had quit smoking in the first three months of 2007 than in any other quarter in anticipation of the smoking ban that came into force in the summer. Professor Robert West, director of tobacco studies at the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit, calculated that 13% of smokers tried to quit in January 2007 - the equivalent of every adult in Newcastle, Manchester, Coventry and Bristol. By monitoring trends in quit rates, he also found that those who chose to quit as their New Year's resolution did better than those who quit at other times of the year.

Success
He said: "We have found that almost half of all smokers actually try to quit at least once over the course of the year and one in eight try to quit in January. "But I was particularly interested to find that, contrary to popular scepticism of New Year's Resolutions, smokers who quit in January also tended to be more successful at staying off cigarettes." He said that many people did not know about the free support that was available to them on the NHS or were put off because they did not know what the services were offering.

"It's not like alcoholics anonymous, it's just practical advice," he said.

"With willpower alone, the chances of success are very small.

"The first thing is to get the right medication, whether that's nicotine replacement, zyban or champix, and the really important thing is having it explained exactly how to use it and to make sure you use enough of it."

Contrary to the NHS Information Centre report, his figures suggest that although people intended to quit because of the smoking ban, the actual number of people smoking has not yet changed.

"What we saw in Ireland was it took a few months for the effects to take hold."