Now I've heard it all...

Having a swift second pint of tea after the weekend cooked breakfast, I was, surprise surprise, flicking through the BBC News website when I came across this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7664523.stm

Now, on some levels, it's quite reassuring to know that some councils are taking school nutrition seriously. So bravo Ceredigion Council (that having been said I'd love to see what they serve the kiddies for lunch as I'd put money on there being chips on the menu somewhere). I'm also chuffed, and not at all surprised, to see this is all going on in Wales - God's own country and somewhere where people take food seriously. On the other hand, you'd think some basic common sense could be applied, wouldn't you?

Chateau Angevin is a Bovril, not a Marmite, house it has to be said, but the same rules apply and we tuck into the black sticky stuff on toast on a fairly regular basis. Yes, it has salt in it, but it also is a good source of Vitamin B2 and niacin - substances which are shoved into breakfast cereals one notes. Amongst all the hysteria about salt I think people have lost sight of the fact we do need SOME in our diet, and whilst cutting down for most people is a good idea, cutting it out entirely is extremely foolish. As I don't use salt AT ALL in my cooking, not even in potatoes etc (I find if you use herbs instead nobody notices the difference) I don't see what is so wrong with the odd plate of Bovril on toast. I suspect Ceredigion have few scruples about using salt in their cooking, so perhaps they should look at this before they start banning Marmite at breakfast.

Another point - Ceredigion admit they use (low sugar) jam and marmalade, which is as far as I'm concerned merely adding to the training of childrens' palates to enjoy sweet things rather than savoury, something I'm quite keen to avoid with regard to Mini. I've long been of the opinion that children only like sweets etc because they are given them, which is why I'm fairly Stalinist when it comes to sugar. It's very noticeable that Mini, given the choice during his early morning unsupervised raids on the fridge, happily scarfs up cheese or prawns rather than the dessert remnants which are usually lurking in there (even when one of the lurkers is chocolate mousse). He'd much rather have really dark chocolate than rubbish like chocolate buttons and has in fact been known to hand the latter back to anybody who has given him a packet with the comment 'I don't like that'. The immunologist who 'does' his vaccinations says he Mini is one of only two children he's encountered in a 30-year career who would rather have raisins as a treat after the evil deed than chocolate. This is not to say that the poor little lad is totally deprived - he loves (home-made) strawberry jam sandwiches or a proper cream tea, but the crucial point is it's all IN MODERATION. He'd equally as happily scoff a ham sandwich or a sausage roll or have a banana. So as far as I'm concerned, I've done him a favour by not making him have the sweet-tooth cravings which are the legacy of the woolly-minded 'this is what kids do' mentality which in my opinion is half the cause of childhood obesity. Children eat what they are given and if they are routinely offered sweets or crap or fast food they assume that is the 'norm' and their palates are adjusted accordingly. Again, Ceredigion might think about that before it happily shoves jam, even low-sugar jam, down kiddies at breakfast.

Which brings me on to my next point... breakfast clubs. Again, I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I can see they are a pretty good idea for working parents, who can drop their kids off early and know they are safe, being given a decent meal and having a good time with their pals. I'd also put money on the stuff being served for breakfast at the club being generally better for the children than some of the things they'd have at home, if indeed breakfast even makes an appearance in the home routine which is so often does not. The Chateau Angevin breakfast is an extremely important part of the day, it has to be said made much easier to accomplish by the fact Mini is home-schooled and I don't have a 9-5 job - the issues of school-bus, school run and timekeeping at work do not apply.

The downside, I feel, is the fact that if parents are dumping their kiddies off as early as they can in the morning, it's yet another erosion of family life. As so many parents also take advantage of afterschool clubs too, I suspect quite often they don't see their children between 8am and 6pm most days. As the weekends are probably spent catching up on housework or other essential things, or even just having some relaxation time which everybody needs if they are working a full week, I have a creeping feeling that most parents these days just don't have the same level of contact with their children that our parents or grandparents had with their offspring. Is it therefore, then, any surprise that the media is full of articles about the breakdown of family relationships and indeed, communities if we as a society have created conditions in which it's difficult for families to even start the day together because they have to rush off to earn enough to keep the financial ship afloat?

I know there isn't an easy answer to all this and in most cases both parents HAVE to work just to survive. But given every study I've ever read about confirms my beliefs that children are happier, better adjusted and thrive more when there is a parent at home surely the Government should be taking this issue a lot more seriously? Oh, silly me.... I forgot that two parents working means two sources of taxation for the Treasury... which sadly explains why all the 'initiatives' and 'pilot schemes' have been and I suspect will continue to be aimed at getting mothers back to work as soon possible after they leave the maternity ward. Never mind the mental health of both parent and child, or indeed the social health of our country....