School dinners may encourage picky teenagers to eat better, study suggests

Having school dinners could encourage picky teenagers to eat better, a study suggests.
When children who were picky eaters got to choose their own food at school at lunchtime they ate a wider variety of food compared with those who had a packed lunch, researchers found.
The findings, published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, suggest picky eaters at the age of 13 were more likely than non-picky children to avoid meat, fish and fruit in their packed lunches.
But there was little evidence of picky eaters avoiding meat, fish and fruit in school dinners.
Researchers examined data from more than 5,300 children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children – also known as the 'Children of the 90s' study.
The University of Bristol-led study analysed data from children when they were pre-schoolers and again at age 13 to understand how picky eating behaviour changes over time.
'Our results suggest that some picky eating behaviours persist while others may be modified in adolescents when they are away from direct familial influence, such as when eating school dinners with their peers,' the study said.
It added: 'It is likely that family norms have a stronger influence over packed lunch content than over school dinner choices where the child has more autonomy and may be influenced by their peers.'
Dr Caroline Taylor, lead researcher and associate professor in nutrition at the University of Bristol, said: 'Every child is different, and what works for some won't work for others.
'We found that school dinners could be a good option to increase variety in the diets of picky teens, but there are plenty of other things parents can do to encourage a healthy diet.
'Whether that is enjoying family meals together, modelling a balanced diet yourself, or involving them in meal preparation, it all helps.
'We know that most picky children are eating enough, but they're sometimes lacking a good balance of foods.
'It's important to encourage all children to eat enough nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables to help them grow and develop, whether that's at home or at school.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

16 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Warning over 'two tier' support for ADHD sufferers amid 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers

NHS waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis and support have led to a 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers, a report has said. The ADHD Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report calling for the system of diagnosing and managing the neurological condition to be overhauled. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is characterised by patterns of restlessness, impulsivity and difficulty concentrating on one thing, with assessment and treatment typically provided by highly specialised doctors. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long', with demand on services 'very likely' to continue to rise. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'We need to get this right – to make sure people get early diagnosis and support.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.'

Daily Mail​

16 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG

The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.

Times

22 minutes ago

• Times

NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby

Every baby born in the UK will have their DNA mapped by the NHS as part of efforts to assess their future risk of hundreds of diseases. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said every newborn would undergo whole genome sequencing within a decade. Streeting has said the move was part of a ten-year health plan, due to be published early next month, which will allow babies to 'leapfrog' major killers. 'The revolution in medical science means that we can transform the NHS over the coming decade, from a service which diagnoses and treats ill-health, to one that predicts and prevents it,' Streeting told The Telegraph. 'Genomics presents us with the opportunity to leapfrog disease, so we're in front of it rather than reacting to it.