"It is heartening therefore to read that the majority are doing well and have settled well into school," he said.

But a deeper dive into the report reveals less heartening news in terms of diet. While it is recommended that young people consume at least five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, only 11% achieved this target on a typical day, according to their mothers. About half the respondents (53%) said that two or three portions of vegetables are eaten per day. Almost a quarter were reported to eat one or no portion on a typical day and this was almost twice as likely in families in the lowest income (30%) compared to 18% in families with the highest income.

In terms of snacking, 41% of the teens snacked daily. On average they snacked twice a day and one of those snacks was a sugary food or drink.

In summary, young teens are eating way below the recommended amounts of fruit and vegetables, with almost a third of children in the lowest income groups eating one or less portion a day and many children snacking regularly on sugary foods.

Obesity

Today in Ireland, about a fifth of children are overweight, with 5% living with obesity. These figures are skewed by income groups. Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (COSI) data (2020) for children in primary schools showed that risks of obesity are double (8.2%) in disadvantaged schools compared to other schools (4%).

So how can the environment be altered to ensure that children are no longer exposed to a diet that is causing a quarter of children to have to suffer with the physical and mental impact of being overweight and living with obesity, that for many is a life sentence?

Food entrepreneur Henry Dimbleby explores this theme in depth in his new book Ravenous, How to get ourselves and our planet into shape. 

"We are fat and ill because we live in a world full of food that makes us fat and ill. Our biology is completely unsuited to the obesogenic environment we have built for ourselves," he writes. 

But how can we break the reliance on junk food?

A key recommendation in Dimbleby’s UK National Food Strategy (2021) was the introduction of a tax on the salt and sugar used in processed food. The point of the proposed tax is to make food companies change their recipes, rather than raising prices. The tax would only apply to sugar and salt bought in bulk for food processing, not the stuff sold in shops. Dimbleby says that we need to "shift the onus away from hardworking people (or even lazy ones) and onto the manufacturers who make what we eat". 

"A company that is producing ready meals to sell at 80p per meal, or ice cream at 10p a scoop, is very sensitive to the cost of ingredients. They don’t want to have to shrink their profit margins, but nor do they want to risk losing customers by putting up prices. So, if the sugar became more expensive, manufacturers would use less of it." 

This is exactly what happened with the soft drinks industry levy that was introduced in 2018 when the makers of sugary drinks reformulated their products — reducing sugar content by almost a third (29%) across the market — rather than increasing their prices. They did so without customers noticing the difference.

Taxation

We know that taxes work. When petrol is more expensive, people drive more carefully and buy more fuel-efficient cars. Cigarette consumption fell when prices rose. Dimbleby suggests that taxing the added sugar in processed food would be no different.

In Ireland, the Department of Health announced recently that it will examine the impact of the tax on sugary drinks and the potential to develop a similar levy on some processed foods.

This follows a recommendation from the Commission on Taxation and Welfare that the Government draws up fiscal measures to reduce the consumption of highly processed foods and promote healthier eating. Government sources indicated recently that while there is ongoing analysis of the sugar tax, new proposals in this area are not believed to be imminent.

Dimbleby asks why there is a reluctance on the part of politicians to take up such a win-win proposition?

"Chiefly from an abundance of caution. Politicians are understandably nervous about seeming to interfere in matters as personal as what to eat.

"Politicians are also anxious not to do anything that might make food companies less competitive or put any kind of drag on the economy. This is a perfectly legitimate concern. 

But it does mean they are susceptible to scaremongering from industry lobbyists, who fight hard to maintain the multi-billion pound status quo of the food system." 

The British government had previously agreed in 2020 to introduce restrictions on the in-store promotions of unhealthy food and on the advertising of junk food to children.

But, under pressure from food companies, advertisers and free market ideologists, the government lost its nerve. The legislation on junk food advertising and in-store promotions has been delayed three times and continues to sit on the back burner.

Advertising restrictions

In the Irish context, the Public Health (Obesity) Bill, promised in the programme for government, would have the capacity to legislate for an online ban on the marketing of unhealthy food and drink, restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy food on state owned infrastructure; and regulation for no-fry zones for all new fast food outlets as well as advertising of unhealthy food and drinks near schools. 

Legislation to ensure the removal of all foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) from end-of-aisle checkouts and counters, a ban on BOGOF (Buy one, get one free) offers on HFSS goods and a ban on nutrition and health claims on these products is also to be considered.

Founder of global advertising agency John Hegarty suggests that advertising junk food to children is no longer a decent thing to do.

"No one is against profit — but profiting from illness and misery is not a sustainable business model." And yet, there is a deafening silence on the introduction of this potentially game-changing Public Health (Obesity) Bill.

It is a familiar pattern. Politicians resolve to do the right thing but baulk when they run up against the inevitable wall of resistance.

We have the evidence. Now it is time to enact robust legislation to transform the food market and the health and wellbeing of all citizens — particularly people on low incomes and children.

Dr Catherine Conlon is a public health doctor and former director of human health and nutrition, safefood.