BRIEFING ON SCHOOLS’ ROLE IN PROMOTING CHILD HEALTH AND COMBATING COMMERCIALISATION

This briefing provides an overview of developments in the area of commercialisation. Information on this area has been circulated to divisions and associations and is also featured on the NUT website.

Annual Conference 2003 adopted a resolution unanimously on the commercialisation of schools, child health and advertising aimed at children. This topic has received a great deal of media attention and concerns have been raised by a wide range of organisations about the issue of food promotion to children and the effect that it has on child health.

Commercial companies are becoming increasingly involved in schools. The NUT is deeply alarmed at the targeting of schools by businesses seeking to market their products and exploit schools, pupils and parents. UK brands are spending an estimated £300m a year on targeting the classroom to increase sales. Many children’s food products include fundraising offers for school books, equipment or school sports clothing.

The NUT’s concern is compounded by the fact that the schools funding crisis created by the Government is placing pressure on some schools to be involved in promotions because of their budget difficulties. In some cases revenue from vending machines can amount to almost £50,000 – the equivalent of two teachers’ salaries.

In 2003 Cadbury launched a multimillion pound campaign to encourage children as young as seven to buy chocolate bars in exchange for school sports equipment. The campaign had the backing of the Government. The scheme has been widely condemned by a number of organizations including the Food Commission and the British Diabetic Association. In December 2003 it was reported that Cadbury was considering scrapping the scheme following widespread criticism.

The Department for Education and Skills is encouraging companies to produce more commercial materials for schools. Its EBNet website, which promotes business and education links, lists the benefits to large companies of such involvement: “They can acquire better market knowledge, tap into local creativity to develop new products and gain new and more loyal customers”.

The Union has been working closely with Debra Shipley, MP, who is leading the campaign in parliament for a ban on advertisements for “junk food” during television programmes aimed at young children. The campaign is supported by around 90 national organisations in addition to the NUT, including the National Heart Forum, Food Commission, Diabetes UK, National Obesity Forum and National Consumer Council.

The NUT is disappointed at the Government’s recent decision to delay a decision on whether food advertising to children should be banned. The Government has instead instructed the new television regulator, Ofcom, to draw up a new code on junk food and drinks advertising aimed at children.

The link between food promotion and children’s eating patterns is confirmed in the Food Standard Agency’s report, “Does Food Promotion Influence Children? A systematic review of the evidence.”

The report, published in September 2003 by the University of Strathclyde, concludes that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption. These effects are apparent not just for different brands, but also for different types of food. They affect whether children buy a chocolate bar or a piece of fruit.

In January 2004, the Union attended a public debate to discuss the issue of food promotion to children and the effect it has on children’s diets and rising levels of childhood obesity. The debate, organised by the Food Standards Agency, highlighted the deep unease at the targeting of children by manufacturers of junk food.

Protecting children

The Union believes that children should be protected from the advertising and marketing of unhealthy food. Some of the world’s largest corporations, who are responsible for undermining health, environment and sustainable development, are at the same time being actively encouraged to become partners with schools and to provide core educational materials and services. Companies now claim that such activities are evidence of corporate social responsibility

Schools are being targeted with increasingly sophisticated materials, which are being presented as educational resources. For example, some schools are providing students with materials taken from a website called Key Skills In Context in which the whole of the section on nutrition is provided by Nestle, the world’s leader in marketing sugary, fatty, salty, highly processed and packaged foods, while the health and health care is provided by PPP healthcare, a private health care provider.

Obesity

Marketing in schools is particularly sought by manufacturers of crisps, soft drinks and sweets. The National Audit Office has expressed concern that the products involved in the Walkers Free Books for Schools scheme detract from healthy eating messages. In its report “Tackling Obesity in England”, it refers to the risk that some schemes “may encourage children and their families to buy more snack foods with high fat, salt and sugar content”.

The Chief Medical Officer for England, in his 2002 Annual Report, describes childhood obesity as a “public health time bomb”. He calls upon the food industry to “take a more responsible approach to the promotion (especially to children) of foods high in fat, salt and added sugars”.

Nearly one in every ten six-year olds is obese, that’s three children in an average year one class. One in every seven 15-year olds is obese.

Between 1984 and 1994, obesity in primary school children increased by 140 per cent. Obesity has been linked to the first cases of type-2 diabetes amongst teenagers in the UK.

Food and behaviour and children’s learning

Research carried out by the Food Commission in 2002 shows that artificial food additives such as flavourings, sweeteners and colourings in popular sweets, biscuits and fizzy drinks can cause children to suffer from hyperactivity, asthma, and other allergy-related problems. This can have adverse effects on children’s learning and their ability to concentrate in the classroom.

A school in Worcestershire which banned all additives from its meals reported a marked improvement in pupils’ behaviour.

A Guardian/ICM poll published in 2003 showed that seven out of ten parents favoured a ban on fizzy drink vending machines in schools.

In January 2004 Coca-Cola announced that it would remove advertising for its soft drinks from the front of all its vending machines in British secondary schools. Pictures of cans of Coca-Cola or Fanta will be replaced by panels showing children playing in a cartoon scene. The company also announced that the machines would contain fewer choices of Coca-Cola products and more juice drinks and bottled water. The decision shows the impact that campaigning can have on a company.

Nearly 40 per cent of children’s foods and drinks contain additives.

Research has shown the importance of eating a healthy breakfast. Many schools in deprived areas have experimented with breakfast clubs as part of their campaign to ensure that children start their day with a healthy meal.

The impact of a chocolate and sugary drink breakfast on the mental alertness of teenagers has been tested by researchers at the University of Reading who concluded that such a junk breakfast left 16-year-olds with the mental reaction times of a 70-year-old.

The Union is supporting an online study on behalf of the Home Grown Cereals Authority to help children realise that their concentration and reaction times are improved if they eat a healthy balanced breakfast.

The NUT supports the valuable work that is being undertaken though the Food in Schools Programme. The Programme is a joint collaboration between the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Skills to encourage healthy eating in schools. Projects being piloted in around 500 schools under the programme include breakfast clubs, healthier tuck shops, healthier vending machines, healthier lunch boxes, dining room environment, cooking clubs, growing clubs and water provision.

The NUT welcomes the decision to extend the pilot National Fruit Scheme to all state primary schools in England. The £77m programme means that all children aged four to six will get a piece of fruit each day at school.

School meals

For many children school meals are their main meal of the day. Many children are served school meals that are too high in fat, sugar and salt, and that contain a large amount of additives. Caterers often only have around 35p per day to spend on ingredients for each child. Figures suggest we spend roughly double (60 pence per lunch) on prison food compared to school meals

Nutritional guidelines for school meals were abandoned in 1979. New “food- based” guidelines were introduced in 2000. These food-based guidelines specify types of food but not nutritional targets. For example, red meat must be served twice a week, but the protein, fat, iron and salt content of the food do not need to be monitored.

Food-based guidelines in a profit-based meal system mean that cheap, poor quality beef burgers will be preferred over high quality red meats, despite their low nutritional content.

Around 30 per cent of primary schools and 70 per cent of secondary schools in England have contracted out of their local authority school meal service

Sport

Both diet and activity are key factors in the issue of obesity.

Only £8.5m of the £750m promised for school sport by the Prime Minister in 2000 has been spent.

Physical activity in schools has fallen by 70 per cent in the past 30 years.

Today young people get on average less than 90 minutes’ exercise a week, according to the British Nutrition Foundation.

Impact on parents

Taking part in a scheme such as voucher collecting can have financial implications for parents. A report by Which? magazine in 2001 showed that under the Tesco Computers for Schools scheme 21,990 vouchers were needed to buy a personal computer costing around £1,000. Parents would have to spend nearly £250,000 to obtain the necessary vouchers. Voucher schemes mean that pressure is put on parents to buy particular brands and shop in particular shops. This can cause additional financial pressures for less well off parents who might not normally shop in particular shops or choose to spend their income on junk food. It also puts pressure on pupils whose parents choose either not to participate in a scheme or cannot afford to participate.

What the Union is doing

The Union has issued guidance to members on the use of commercial materials in schools and the issues which should be taken into account after whole-school discussion. This is on the Union website, plus a useful list of website links to information from other organisations. Articles in “The Teacher” have featured this issue and the Union’s work. The Union is the only teachers’ organisation which is actively campaigning on this important topic, which has received a high level of media coverage.

Contact details

Please contact Lucy Carpenter in the Privatisation in Education Unit in the Education and Equal Opportunities Department () if you want more information or have suggestions for future Union work on this topic.

1

SCHOOLS’ ROLE IN PROMOTING HEALTH16 February 2004

04-26-E&EO ATT1