Girls Aloud songstress Cheryl Cole, who’s pulled out of X Factor because of the illness, has apparently shrunk to just SIX stone.

We all know that junk food can be extremely addictive. You know the feeling – it’s mid-afternoon and you can think of nothing you’d rather do than grab a Mars bar or a packet of crisps. Have you ever stopped to consider though, that the cravings may all be in your head?

Physcologist, David Moxton has expressed his opinion that the first step to any weight loss plan should involve a change in attitudes towards food.

He goes on to say that people need to develop a healthy mental attitude before they start slimming. “Food is heavily influenced by psychological factors in lots of different ways,” the expert said, adding: “you can’t tackle eating behaviour without looking at some of these deeper psychological issues.”

Altering dietary patterns is likely to prove difficult but with the average British person spending £1,000 on junk food every year we could definitely do with redefining our attitudes towards food, as an entire nation.

Mmm..donuts!

When we also consider the fact that one quarter of British adults are obese, according to the latest Department of Health figures, the argument for change is strengthened. The same figures showed that just under a third of women were overweight, while 42% of men were obese. These statistics are lower than those currently recorded in America where two thirds of adults are obese or overweight. However, but experts predict that it will not be long before Britain follows suit, given recent trends.

National Junk Food Day is Wednesday, July 21.

Not really. A bona fide national day requires an Act of Congress, and whatever you may think about the government, it’s unlikely that representatives from any political party would support such a notion, especially now, when our population is getting fatter and fatter.

But across the U.S. lots of folks know about this particular occasion, whose sole purpose is to encourage everyone to pig out on snacks, candy, soda and whatever else you can eat that’s fattening and has no nutritional value.

Who — or what — made up this bogus holiday? A rebellious teenager whose parent is vigilant against soda, candy and chips? A health-conscious grown-up who needs an excuse to binge one day a year? A lobbyist for the beverage/candy/snack food industry, which just wants everyone to buy more, more, more?

More to the point, is there really a need for a special day to do all the things so many of us already do on a regular basis? Consumption of so-called junk food has skyrocketed in recent times.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, about two-thirds of all Americans over age 20 are overweight, about one-third are obese; children are following fast, with more than 10 percent overweight. Other countries are catching up. But you know the story by now and don’t need the government to tell you what’s clearly in plain sight — look around — or that obesity and certain illnesses such as heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes go hand-in-hand.

First lady Michelle Obama has taken childhood obesity on as her particular calling in the Let’s Move campaign (http://letsmove.gov). One of its first goals is the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, one of the rare bipartisan efforts pending in Congress. The CNA review, scheduled for 2009, was postponed to 2010, giving the government more opportunity to improve school lunches.

But there’s more to becoming overweight or obese than school lunches, which, after all, focuses only on children, not anyone reading this. Doctors, scientists, teachers, nutritionists and others all have opinions on how so many of us got so heavy and what we need to do to slim down and become healthier. Thousands of books are written on the subject. In our personal efforts, we join diet support groups and go to the gym. The junk food industry is big-time. So is the diet industry. So is the insurance industry whose customers need coverage for the ailments that result from being overweight.

Every five years the government issues nutritional guidelines, and the 2010 preliminary report has just been published (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm). It reaffirms an old maxim we all heard from our grandmothers: Eat in moderation and don’t eat more than you can burn off. The report suggests that we eat more plant-based foods, whole grains, low-fat dairy and seafood, and that we eat less salt and be more aware of how many calories we are consuming.

Which gets us back to junk food.

People differ on the specifics, but everyone agrees that junk food is the opposite of healthy, that it is often high in calories, fat, salt or caffeine and offers little or no nutritional value. Typical junk foods range from chips and candy to cheeseburgers and fries to sugared breakfast cereals, doughnuts and the like. Some consider foods such as pizza junk, but others say that because it contains cheese and (typically) tomato, it can pass as a healthy-enough grilled cheese sandwich, especially if it has other vegetables and, hope against hope, a whole-wheat crust.

Apparently, one of the real problems with junk food is that its fat content triggers the brain to want more food, making it hard to satisfy real hunger even if, say, you eat a whole 7-ounce bag of potato chips (about 1,100 calories). And the sugar in candy consumption keeps insulin levels up, which confuses your metabolism and sends false signals that you need more to eat. In addition, people who eat junk have less room for nutritious foods. In severe cases that could lead to malnutrition, which seems counterintuitive when a person is hefty.

Whether or not you celebrate National Junk Food Day and whether or not you are among the majority of Americans who are overweight, it’s likely that you like to snack. Who doesn’t? And while no one wants to be lectured, you should know that there are beverages and snacks that are healthy and also delicious, and that are easy to make at home. If you grab for one of these instead of that sugar-laden soda, you might be surprised that you’re filled up emotionally and nutritionally, that it tastes better than you imagined and that you feel better after eating than you do after consuming junk. You might shed some pounds, too.

The first two recipes for today are for an East Indian beverage called a lassi, which is similar to a smoothie. Lassis are typically sweetened (mine are not) and basically have the same nutritional content as a smoothie.

Strawberry Mint Lassi

1 cup plain low-fat Greek style yogurt

1/2 cup chopped strawberries

2 ice cubes

2 tablespoons milk

8 mint leaves

Place the yogurt, berries, ice cubes, milk and mint leaves in a blender jar and whirl for at least 30 seconds or until the ice has been thoroughly blended and the beverage is frothy. Makes 1.

Mango Lassi

1 cup plain low-fat Greek style yogurt

1 mango, peeled and chopped

1 tablespoon honey, optional

4 ice cubes

2 tablespoons milk

Place the yogurt, mango, optional honey, ice cubes and milk in a blender jar and whirl for at least 30 seconds or until the ice has been thoroughly blended and the beverage is frothy. Makes 1.

Spiced Almonds

1 teaspoon curry powder

1/2 teaspoon ground cumin

1/2 teaspoon ground ginger

1/8 teaspoon freshly ground nutmeg

1/8 teaspoon freshly grated cinnamon

1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper

2 cups coarsely chopped almonds

2 tablespoons olive oil

2 tablespoons agave syrup

1 tablespoon orange juice

In a small bowl, mix together the curry powder, cumin, ginger, nutmeg, cinnamon and cayenne pepper. Place the almonds in a large unoiled saute pan and cook over medium heat for 2 to 3 minutes or until the nuts are lightly toasted. Add the spice mixture and toss ingredients. Pour in the olive oil, agave syrup and orange juice. Cook, stirring constantly for 3 to 5 minutes or until toasty brown. Remove from the pan and let cool. Makes 2 cups.

Lemon-Pepper Hummus with Tahini

15-16 ounce can chickpeas

1/2 cup fresh lemon juice

1/3 cup tahini 2 tablespoons olive oil

3 cloves garlic

1/2 teaspoon ground cumin

2 tablespoons chopped fresh parsley

Carrot or celery sticks or whole wheat pita bread cut into wedges

Drain the chickpeas, but reserve the liquid. Place the chickpeas, lemon juice, tahini, olive oil, garlic and cumin in a food processor. Add 4 tablespoons reserved bean liquid and process until well blended. Add more bean liquid for a smoother texture. Garnish with chopped parsley. Serve with carrot or celery sticks or whole wheat pita wedges. Makes about 1 1/2 cups.

Yogurt-Cucumber Dip

3 cups thick, Greek-style nonfat yogurt

3 medium cucumbers, peeled and deseeded

6 radishes, grated, optional

1 large clove garlic, minced

3 tablespoons chopped fresh mint

2 tablespoons chopped fresh dill

3 tablespoons lemon juice

1 tablespoons olive oil kosher salt if desired crudites or whole-wheat pita bread wedges

Place the yogurt in a bowl. Grate the cucumbers, press down on them through a strainer to extract as much liquid as possible, and add them to the yogurt. Add the radishes, if used, the garlic, mint, dill, lemon juice and olive oil. Stir to blend all the ingredients thoroughly. Taste for seasoning and add salt if desired. Serve with crudites or whole-wheat pita wedges.

Makes about 4 cups, serving 10 to 12 people.

Ronnie Fein is a cookbook author and cooking teacher in Stamford. Visit her food blog, Kitchen Vignettes, at www.ronniefein.com.

n the 1998 film Bulworth, Warren Beatty’s wayward Senator loses his mind and reveals how US politics is bankrolled by big corporations. While not matching the Hollywood actor’s looks, the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, seems similarly to have taken leave of his senses in a series of announcements that have astonished commentators by their rapidity and foolishness.

The difference is that this former private secretary to Norman Tebbit has not been railing against corporations. Instead, he has been embedding their views in policy.

While other coalition ministers are making plans to protect the public from rogue banks and energy giants, Mr Lansley has been fending off proposals to tackle the junk-food giants. Campaigners began to realise something was afoot on 16 June when, with his support, Conservative MEPs killed off traffic-light labelling, which exposes hidden salt, fat and sugar. By doing so, his party went against the advice of the British Medical Association, the British Dietetic Association, the British Heart Foundation and dozens of other health and consumer groups.

A week later the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published a plan to prevent 40,000 deaths from heart disease, calling for a ban on trans fats, no TV junk-food advertising before 9pm and restrictions on takeaways close to schools. The British Heart Foundation, the Faculty of Public Health and the Royal College of Physicians supported those proposals. Yet the Department of Health rejected them outright on the day of publication, saying that people should just eat better and exercise more. On 30 June, Mr Lansley ridiculed Jamie Oliver’s campaign on school dinners, saying it had been a flop, and a week later scrapped £75m of funding for the Change4Life anti-obesity campaign, for which he appealed for funding from… makers of fatty foods.

This week Mr Lansley was waving his axe at the Food Standards Agency, set up 10 years ago following the last Conservative government’s cover-up of BSE and which devised the traffic-light system on food that would have hit junk-food sales. Though still awaiting the results of a review of “arm’s length bodies”, Mr Lansley intends to hand the FSA’s role on public health to the Department of Health. While admittedly too timid with food firms, the FSA has saved thousands of lives by cajoling them into reformulating products. Jack Winkler, nutrition professor at London Metropolitan University, described its salt campaign as “the single best nutrition policy in the UK since the Second World War”.

Throughout, Mr Lansley has parroted the junk-food industry’s line that there is no such thing as bad food, only a bad diet. There is some truth to this: people must take responsibility for what they eat. But the mantra ignores the forces arrayed against healthy-eating. Manufacturers spend hundreds of millions of pounds promoting addictive and enticing fatty and sugary brands – against Change4Life’s £25m-a-year budget; most labelling hides the unhealthiness of these high-margin products, and supermarkets promote them far more aggressively than they do fresh produce.

Some wonder if Mr Lansley has been nobbled by lobbyists. He mentioned Unilever while opposing traffic-light labelling. Private Eye suggests that Lucy Neville-Rolfe, head of corporate affairs at Tesco, advises him. Yet the Electoral Commission has no record of substantial donations to the Conservative Party from multinational food firms. We must assume the Secretary of State really believes that public health professionals are incompetent.

At almost no public cost, he could have slimmed a corpulent industry that has made most people look as if they have been inflated with air through their belly button. Instead, we will all be paying the hospital bill for obesity for decades to come.

The Healthy Kids Act is now in effect. It’s goal, to prevent childhood obesity. But this new law comes with a lot of restrictions and schools in Iowa are making some big changes.

Fried foods will no longer be served in school cafeterias in Iowa. Starch food items like french fries can only be served in small portions and just twice a week. Sodas and sports drinks will no longer be allowed and only non-fat milk will be served.

School officials say keeping the fat content and sodium count low will make the school’s food budget of two dollars per child even tighter but they are not worried.

“We are not anticipating raising the prices of lunches to the kids at this particular point. We feel confident that we should be able to get through this and get a resolution and still be in compliance with everything,” said Rich Luze, Sioux City’s School Food Service Director.

Kids are not only going to notice a change in their cafeteria menus. Vending machines will also have to include healthier items that meet the act’s guidelines.

Over the years, we’ve paid a great deal of attention to the use of cartoon characters to sell fresh produce:

The Bitter Truth About Promoting Produce To Children

Is It A License To Print Money?

Pundit’s Mailbag – Characters and Marketing

Grape “Character” Analysis

Pundit’s Mailbag – PBH/Imagination Farms Alliance Questioned

Being Consumer-Focused

Disney Disconnect

There was a burst of excitement over this marketing technique, especially when various studios decided to become more flexible with their financial demands as they realized they wanted to be seen on the side of the angels.

Yet that initial enthusiasm seems to have waned. Kroger, for example, held a unique license to use Disney characters on many food products – completely separate from the Disney Gardens project. Yet that project was quietly terminated – not likely because sales were too high.

Grimmway Farms was once making many headlines for taking on the Nickelodeon characters — another project that has seen its day.

Now to some extent the challenges of cartoon-character marketing in produce are unique to produce:

First, generally retailers only carry one brand of each item. So whereas the cereal aisle can have a kids-oriented cereal and the stores can perhaps pick up extra business because they still sell adult cereals, produce departments have to switch what they currently sell to the cartoon version, and there is the possibility that this could dissuade as many buyers as it attracts. In other words, even if young children push their parents to purchase Dora the Explorer baby carrots, maybe 15-year-old boys banish the item from their lunch boxes and this results in less total demand.

Second, the companies that took on the brands fell into one of two categories. Either they were industry leaders, which meant they had precious little incentive to push customers to favor the cartoon brand and simply had it available at customer request, or they used it in markets where one chain wanted to differentiate itself or the companies that took on the cartoon licensing were secondary players in that commodity, without the production, sales staff and marketing program to boost demand.

All the sudden, though, the latest headlines are filled with words claiming that characters are very powerful influencers with children. USA Today headlined its article, Cartoon Characters Tilt Kids’ Food Choices Toward Junk Food:

Kids think snacks taste better when popular cartoon characters such as Shrek and Dora the Explorer are plastered on the packages, a study shows.

Nutrition experts have long argued that such images shouldn’t be used to market junk food to kids, especially given the childhood obesity epidemic. About one-third of children and teens in the USA are either overweight or obese.

For the latest study, researchers at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity gave 40 children, ages 4 to 6, three identical pairs of snacks: graham crackers, gummy fruit and carrots.

One package of each food had a cartoon character — Scooby-Doo, Dora the Explorer or Shrek — on the front; the other didn’t. Children were asked if the foods tasted the same or if one tasted better.

The findings, reported online today in the journal Pediatrics:

• More than two-thirds said they would choose the snack with the character on the package.
• About half of the kids said the foods tasted better from packages with the cartoon characters.

“This shows how powerful and influential these characters can be,” says Yale researcher Christina Roberto, the study’s lead author.

Although some cartoon characters are on healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables, the majority of characters are pushing junk foods, she says.

Parents face an uphill battle when they go to the supermarket with their children because kids are drawn to the characters on products, Roberto says.

We’ve read the study, titled Influence of Licensed Characters on Children’s Taste and Snack Preferences and found it raised at least as many questions as it answered.

The researcher’s, Christina A. Roberto, MS, Jenny Baik, BA, Jennifer L. Harris, MBA, PhD and Kelly D. Brownell, PhD from Yale  University’s Rudd Center, tried to make the study robust but there were some real questions about the validity of the study. It had a very small sample size – only 40 children were studied. And this was only 50% of the group they invited to participate.

No research seems to have been done on the 50% of parents that did not give permission for their children to participate, but it seems at least plausible that these might be parents more skeptical of the whole idea of cartoons and didn’t want their children being exposed to more of them. If so, the sample is self-selecting for families more enthusiastic about cartoon characters, an attitude that could easily be reflected in the children.

The researchers also note that the study deviates from protocol typical for double-blind peer-reviewed studies. Double-blind procedures mean that “…neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects.”

In other words, the methodology chosen for this study meant the researchers knew both the point of the study and which product had the character on it. This means that intentionally or unintentionally the experimenter could have influenced the children.

Our experience in merchandising also points to another possible flaw in study design. The researchers seem to have contrasted a blank package with one with the character on it. But this is problematic. It might be that children prefer bright colors or an “object of interest” on their products. In other words, maybe if the non-character boxes had bright color flowers on them or pictures of landmarks or beautiful people or pictures of familiar items, say toys, that children would have preferred those.

One gets the sense that the researchers are straining to reach a conclusion that they wanted. For example, there is a reference that claims that there exists “correlational data that suggested the appearance of SpongeBob SquarePants on vegetables at Grimmway and Boskovich Farms coincided with an increase in the sales of those items.”

The “data” — if one wants to dignify it as such — consists of an article in The San Diego Union-Tribune, titled Hey, Popeye! It’s SpongeBob Spinach, which the researchers accessed on March 1, 2005! The article says nothing about increased sales from the cartoon characters – it can’t, since the article is a piece about the fact that such characters will, in the future, appear on produce. The photo caption clearly says: “SpongeBob SquarePants will be promoting healthy veggies, like spinach and carrots, starting next month.” Note the word “will” – that is pretty sloppy scholarship.

The other piece of supposedly “correlational data” is an oldGrocery Headquarters article from 2007 that quotes both Grimmway and Boskovich – but says nothing about sales. The article is behind a pay wall, blocking free access to the web page, but here are the relevant quotes:

Phil Gruszka, vice president of marketing at Bakersfield, Calif.-based Grimmway Farms, says his company’s alliance with SpongeBob Square Pants has been a learning experience. “There’s an opportunity for children to eat healthier today, and carrots play an important part in this. Kids are naturally attracted to baby carrots, both for their taste as well as their size, which makes it an ideal snack for lunch boxes. However, as we looked into it, we discovered not enough kids were including healthy snacks in their lives, so developing a relationship with the folks at Nickelodeon was a logical next step for us.”

Parents, Gruszka adds, have greeted the program with much enthusiasm. “They are happy that their kids are motivated to eat more produce and are especially relieved that they don’t have to negotiate food choices with their kids,” he says. “Retailers were looking for a program like this and are actively seeking ways to address childhood nutrition issues. They are amazed to see the influence a licensed character like SpongeBob has on kids who are literally begging their parents to buy our carrots because they recognize the character on the packaging.”

Oxnard, Calif.-based Boskovich Farms is leveraging SpongeBob’s popularity through its line of spinach products. “Many Americans do not consume the suggested number of servings of fresh produce, but it is even more important for today’s growing youth, many of whom are affected by childhood obesity,” says Lindsay Martinez, director of marketing. “Spinach is one of those super-vegetables which has so many nutrients and health benefits. It is low in calories and a good source of vitamins A and C, iron, folate and fiber. We felt that produce could be more kid-friendly when marketed with a character such as SpongeBob SquarePants.”

To help get its healthy message across, Grimmway trademarked the phrase “Carrots, the Kid-Friendly Vegetable” and lists carrots’ nutritional benefits on its packaging. The company features holiday-themed packaging several times a year. Gruszka says that has become another way for retailers to create excitement in the produce aisle, have a fresh new look and build eye-catching displays. The program is supported in-store with a variety of POS collateral.

A NUDGE TOWARD SPINACH

Though spinach is not traditionally a kid-friendly item, Boskovich’s Martinez says SpongeBob Spinach gives parents a needed nudge in getting kids to at least try the vegetable. “Our package graphics are specifically targeted to appeal to kids and busy families. Bags offer a microwave-in-bag option, kid-friendly recipes and ‘Nicktrition’ suggestions for healthy lifestyles,” she says. Boskovich Farms backs its program with signage, contests, interactive Web tie-ins and in-store demos featuring SpongeBob character “meet and greets” and in-pack giveaways of temporary tattoos.

It is impossible to read those paragraphs and claim that they provide “correlational data” supporting the thesis that the appearance of cartoon characters coincided with an increase in sales. Not to mention that the pieces are from three- to five-years ago and that a mere glance at the two company’s web sites would indicate that these two companies, whether they own any licenses or not, are certainly not promoting any of these lines.

Whatever happened to scholarship? Whatever happened to Yale?

There are tidbits of interest. The researchers claim the preference for cartoon characters on product was less dramatic in produce than with graham crackers or gummy fruit snacks. This might be due to familiarity, as more processed products are sold with cartoon tie-ins, or it might be that beautiful orange color of carrots is an independent appeal. We just don’t know.

Our anecdotal experience with the Jr. Pundits is that they do like cartoon characters and will often insist that we buy them. We often do – once. But our experience is that, though cartoon characters may make eating foods children already like to eat a little more fun — and so they look for the Shrek Yogurt in the fridge, for example — the impact of cartoon characters does not magically transform their preferences. And although in the store they may see a character on the spinach and cry for it, they will, in fact, not eat spinach if they don’t like it, just because of the character on the bag so the spinach will go to waste.

The “study” is really a hack job to promote a particular policy outcome. The researchers take these 40 kids and leap to a conclusion that literally has nothing to do with the research. The researchers proclaim a policy outcome that could not be drawn from the research no matter what the results. The researchers proclaim: “These findings suggest that the use of licensed characters to advertise junk food to children should be restricted.”

Where does one begin? First, the study did not deal with advertising at all. It provides no information as to whether advertising has any effect. It dealt solely with packaging.

Second, the study was between identical product, with and without characters on the packaging. The study didn’t show… couldn’t show… that characters make kids prefer junk food over the healthy food they would prefer without characters.

To do that, the researchers would have had to do a study with both, say, cookies and, say, collard greens. They would have to identify what percentage of children selected the cookies vs. the collard greens and then show that putting the characters on the cookies boosted that preference.

This “study” seems to be more interested in asserting unsupported policy solutions than in providing useful research and scholarship.

ASHINGTON (KGO) — McDonald’s could soon face a lawsuit over its Happy Meals.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the fast food chain to take the junk food out of its Happy Meals — or else it claims it will file suit.

The Washington-based Consumer Advocacy Group says McDonalds deceptively markets toys to children in unhealthy meals.

The fast-food chain says it is proud of its Happy Meals, claiming they offer a variety of wholesome food and toys of high quality.

Santa Clara county recently voted to ban restaurants from giving away the toys and other freebies that often come with meals aimed at kids.

ROME — To Italians, Nutella is much more than chocolate-hazelnut spread. It’s a cultural icon, the subject of memorable movie scenes, books and song lines.

So it’s no wonder that the mere suggestion that stricter European food labeling rules could harm the beloved product would have Italians up in arms.

The European Parliament approved a draft measure this week requiring all processed foods to have fat, salt and sugar contents clearly labeled on packaging, mostly on the front. The initiative is aimed at fighting obesity and giving consumers more informed choices.

The legislation, which requires final approval the EU’s executive body, was seen as a compromise because the parliament rejected a related measure that would have required food with lots of fat, sugar or salt — like Nutella — to carry red warning stickers.

Still, it has touched a nerve with food producers, which advocate less strict guidelines, and consumer groups and leftist parliament members, who wanted stronger steps such as the red “traffic light” warnings.

But to Italians, it’s all about Nutella and the fear that the EU might be scaring consumers away from the one of their culinary joys.

A government official launched a “Hands off Nutella” committee, quickly supported by the governor of Nutella’s home base in Piedmont. The Cabinet minister for EU affairs warned against the risk of “nutritionist fundamentalism.”

“Nutella Battle in Europe,” wrote La Stampa on Thursday, while other papers featured photos of boys sinking their teeth into Nutella sandwiches.

Nutella is produced by chocolate maker Ferrero. Since 1964, when it first came out, it has been a favorite of Italians and a classic snack for generations of children. Over the years, its appeal has grown far beyond kids.

In a scene that has become a classic of Italian cinema, actor-director Nanni Moretti drowns his sorrows in a giant Nutella jar in the movie “Bianca.” Italian chansonnier Giorgio Gaber, in a song poking fun of this nation’s obsession with “Right” and “Left,” concluded that Nutella is “still left-wing.” Perhaps that’s why leftist leader Walter Veltroni makes no secret of his passion for the chocolate spread.

To its fans, the appeal of Nutella is summed up by its longtime ad: “What world would this be without Nutella?”

Ferrero, while recognizing that the regulations would not amount to a ban on Nutella, says the EU approach carries “risks.” The company’s vice-president, Paolo Fulci, said in a statement that over time it could “influence even the habits and the most intimate aspects of one’s personal sphere, like the genuine and healthy pleasures that are passed among generations.”

But Europe, like the United States, is becoming more health conscious and several countries are taking official steps to promote a better diet.

Denmark and Austria have made artery-clogging trans-fats illegal; Britain, Norway and Sweden have banned junk food commercials from TV at certain times of the day; Romania recently proposed taxes on burgers, french fries, soda and other fast foods with high fat and sugar content.

The “traffic light” scheme in particular has been a point of contention.

Consumers groups and anti-obesity campaigners were disappointed that the measure was rejected. Food producers, while recognizing the consumers’ right to be informed, appeared relieved.

“Traffic lights do not belong on foods,” Juergen Abraham, chief of the German food producers association BVE, said in a written statement Friday.

By contrast, Britain’s Children’s Food Campaign chastised the rejection of the warnings as “yet another set back in the fight against childhood obesity.”

“With over half of Europeans and more than 60 percent of people in the UK now overweight, this outcome is a massive blow for consumers,” said the group’s chief, Mike Rayner.

The new EU measures would also require protein, fiber and transfat levels to be shown on labels. And they seek to crack down on misleading marketing and advertising. For example, one amendment says packages cannot claim that an item offers a substantial reduction in sugar or fat if the overall calorie content is not reduced.

The measure was approved 559-54 with 32 abstentions. It goes next to the European Council, the European Union’s executive body, which must give the final OK.

Large food companies would have three years to start applying the law, while small producers would have five years and are exempt from some of its measures.

To some consumers, the secret to healthy nutrition simply lies in moderation.

“Sure, consumers must be informed, but nobody has ever died from Nutella,” said Giuseppe Puccicca in Rome. “All you need to do is eat a little less of it.”

TOP sporting venues in Wales have been accused of letting down spectators by serving up unhealthy junk food.

Steve Garrett, who chairs the Riverside Community Market Association in Cardiff, said what was on offer at the Millennium Stadium and the Cardiff City Stadium was not good enough.

Both venues last night dismissed the criticism as wholly unfair.

Writing on the Institute of Welsh Affairs’ website, Mr Garrett said: “On and off the playing field we can be sure that our fittest and fastest sports stars are too concerned about their health to be regularly eating highly-processed ‘junk’ food.

“Yet it seems some sports clubs in Wales are happy to offer the potential sports stars of the future as much junk food as possible, with no alternative ‘real food’ healthy option.

“With the eyes of the world focused on football and the excitement of the World Cup matches in South Africa, this is a perfect opportunity to consider how football clubs could contribute to a greater public awareness about the links between food choices and health, and to promoting the importance of a healthy diet among budding young footballers.

“This is particularly relevant in Cardiff, where the new Cardiff City football stadium recently picked up an award as a ‘Healthy Stadium’. Yet in the view of Sian Evans, a dietician and the mother of one keen young Cardiff City fan – a view that has been repeated to me many times by other parents – the quality of food on sale at the stadium is of such poor quality that she won’t let her son buy anything.

“What Sian and other parents want to know is, with such an array of excellent food being produced in Wales, why is there no local, tasty, nutritious, additive-free food available in or around this so-called ‘healthy’ facility?

“Can we really hope to produce the sports stars and teams of the future by feeding our children – the sports stars of the future – highly processed, manufactured food?

“Welsh people love playing sports and attending live sports events. But the food on offer at sports stadia in Wales and England is probably the lowest quality anywhere in the world, along with the USA.

“The food available in and around the Millennium Stadium on match days, for example, is not only costly but is of very low quality, with little or nothing fresh or sourced locally.”

A spokesman for Cardiff City FC said: “We are proud of our proactive approach to improving the experience of all who visit Cardiff City Stadium, which has been widely recognised by our peers at the Football League in recent years.

“This is set to continue in the 2010-11 season, where following our ground-breaking family focus group sessions, a number of positive initiatives and promotions are already being prepared as a part of our ongoing family programme.

“Our outstanding Community Foundation team are also vigorously active in promoting positive messages to thousands of children in the community every year, including healthy eating, literacy and anti-bullying programmes. This is also something that we will continue to deliver.”

Both the Millennium Stadium and the Cardiff City Stadium have catering contracts with Compass. A spokeswoman for Compass said: “We take our responsibility extremely seriously and strive to ensure that all visitors have a choice of food and drink to satisfy their needs.

“Our offer reflects customer demand, using the highest quality product possible. This includes Welsh-sourced produce, home-made food and pies and hot dogs that have the lowest salt content and use the best cuts of meat.

“A stadium visit is usually considered a treat, but as awareness of healthy food continues to grow, we have introduced fruit and water meal deal accompaniments. From next season we will offer a wider range of healthy foods and drinks as well as smaller portion sizes for children.

“As an example of the responsibility we have taken in developing our offer, at Cardiff City Stadium, where we work with a family focus group, we are collaborating with local children to develop a new fruit smoothie drink and a soup offer for the new season.”

This shocking picture, with its piles of oven chips, mini rolls and tubs of icecream, represents just how much junk food one child in the UK consumes in a year.

UK: A mountain of junk food

It is perhaps unsurprising then that today’s children have been labeled the ‘junk food generation’, with a third of youngsters aged five to 13 already considered obese.

Despite this, the Conservatives have decided to axe the watchdog that was set up a decade ago to regulate the junk-food companies.

The Food Standards Agency was set up in 2000 to hold food firms to account after a series of scandals in which people had died from food-borne illnesses such as e.coli and CJD.

But today Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will unveil a long-awaited white paper containing plans to abolish it as part of a ‘bonfire of quangos’.

The decision to reduce regulation on food companies will enrage doctors who only this weekend called on ministers to impose ‘fat taxes’ on unhealthy food  -  and cigarette-style warnings to children about the dangers of a poor diet.

The Health Secretary was accused of being ‘taken to the cleaners’ by food companies after announcing plans to ditch tough controls on salt, sugar and fat content  -  if producers agree to fund healthy eating campaigns.

Junk-food companies admitted they had not yet been asked to provide any money.

Mr Lansley defended the plans, saying the closure of health bodies would save £1billion a year in bureaucracy costs.

So while the political debate rages, just what ARE British children eating?

The Food Standards Agency and the 2009 National Diet and Nutrition Survey have calculated the amount of junk that children consume per year  -  and it makes worrying reading.

Below, we break down the intake for each food category. While many items are acceptable if eaten in moderation, in bulk they can cause long-term health problems…

BREAKDOWN OF THE BULGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Biscuits: The average British child eats 5,840g a year

Equal to: 47 packs of biscuits Fat: 13.9g per 100g = 812g fat per year Sugars: 42.5g per 100g = 2,482g sugar per year Calories: 454 per 100g 26,514 calories per year

Buns, cakes and pastries: The average child eats 8,030g a year

Equal to: 54 packs of Cadbury Mini Rolls Fat: 22.7g per 100g = 1,823g per year Sugars: 45.3g per 100g = 3,638g per year Calories: 450 per 100g 36,135 calories per year

Cheese: The average child eats 4,380g a year

Equal to: 256 cream cheese triangles Fat: 19.5g per 100g = 854g per year Sugars: 5.3g per 100g = 232g per year Calories: 240 per 100g 10,512 calories per year

Ice Cream: The average child eats 5,840g a year

Equal to: 6 tubs Fat: 4g per 100ml = 264g per year Sugars: 9.9g per 100ml = 654g per year Calories: 85 per 100ml 5,616 calories per year

Butter: The average child eats 730g a year

Equal to: 3 blocks of butter Fat: 80.9g per 100g = 591g per year Sugars: 0.6g per 100g = 4.4g per year Calories: 734 per 100g 5,358g per year

Bacon and ham: The average child eats 3,285g a year

Equal to: 14 packs of bacon Fat: 19.8g per 100g = 650g per year Sugars: 0g Calories: 245 per 100g 8,048 per year 8,048 calories per year

Coated chicken: The average child eats 3,650g a year

Equal to: 13 bags breaded dinosaurs Fat: 17.8g per 100g = 650g per year Sugars: 1.7g per 100g = 62g per year Calories: 280 per 100g 10,220 calories a year

Burgers and kebabs:The average child eats 1,825g a year

Equal to: 17 hamburgers Fat: 8g per 100g = 146g per year Sugars: 6g per 100g = 110g per year Calories: 250 per burger 4,563 calories a year

Milk When eating out, whole milk is often used in cafes and restaurants. The average child drinks 68,225g a year

Whole milk:  Fat: 3.6g per 100ml = 2,916g per year Sugars: 4.7g per 100ml = 3,807g per year Calories: 64 per 100ml = 51,840 cals per year

Semi-skimmed: Fat: 1.6g per 100ml = 1,296g per year Sugars: 5g per 100ml = 4,050g per year Calories: 48 per 100ml = 38,880 cals per year

Skimmed: Fat: 0.1g per 100ml = 8.1g per year Sugars: 5g per 100ml = 4,050g per year Calories: 34 per 100ml 27,540 calories per year

The average child eats 2,920g of meat pies a year

Sausages: The average child eats 5,840g a year

Equal to: 600 cocktail sausages Fat: 19.5g per 100g = 1,139g per year Sugars: 1.2g per 100g = 70g per year Calories: 275 per 100g 16,060 calories per year

Meat pies: The average child eats 2,920g a year

Equal to: 14 steak and kidney pies Fat: 10g per 100g = 292g per year Sugars: 0.2g per 100g = 6g per year Calories: 165 per 100g 4,818 calories per year

Fish, coated or fried: The average child eats 3,650g a year

Equal to: 130 fish fingers Fat: 8.2g per 100g = 299g per year Sugars: 1.1g per 100g = 40g per year Calories: 188 per 100g 6,862 calories per year

Chips and roast potatoes: The average child eats 14,965g a year

Equal to: 8 bags of oven chips Fat: 5.4g per 100g = 808g per year Sugars: 0.8g per 100g = 120g per year Calories: 163 per 100g 24,393 calories per year

Sugar (including Jams) The average child eats 1,825g a year

Equal to: 3.5 bags of sugar Fat: 0g Calories: 400 per 100g 7,300 calories per year Sugar confectionery The average child eats 4,015g a year Equal to: 21 bags of jelly sweets Fat: 0.2g per 100g = 8g per year Sugars: 63.4g per 100g = 2,546g per year Calories: 334 per 100g 13,410 calories per year

Chocolate: The average child eats 3,285g a year

Equal to: 52 chocolate bars Fat: 17.4 per 100g = 572g per year Sugars: 59g per 100g = 1,938g per year Calories: 446 per 100g 14,651 calories per year fruit

Juice: The average child drinks 31,390g a year

Equal to: 32 litres Fat: 0g Sugars: 10.4g per 100ml = 3,328g per year Calories: 46 per 100ml 14,720 calories per year Soft drinks (not diet) The average child drinks 54,385g a year Equal to: 55 litres Fat: 0g Sugars: 10.6g per 100ml = 5,830g per year Calories: 41 per 100ml 22,550 calories per year

Breakfast cereals (not wholegrain or high fibre) The average child eats 3,650g a year

Equal to: 7 boxes Fat: 2.5g per 100g = 91.25g per year Sugars: 35g per 100g = 1,278g per year Calories: 387 per 100g 14,126 calories per year

Wholewheat and high fibre cereals The average child eats 6,570g a year

Equal to: 13 boxes Fat: 2g per 100g = 131g per year Sugars: 22g per 100g = 1,445g per year Calories: 324 per 100g 21,287 calories per year
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1293824/Junk-food-mountain-The-astonishing-rubbish-child-eats-year.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0tZLHqtau