£120 grant to buy fruit and vegetables

· Brown rejects 'nanny state' criticism

 

Jo Revill, Whitehall editor

Sunday September 9, 2007

The Observer

 

 

All expectant mothers are to be given a one-off payment of around £120 that they will be encouraged to spend on fresh fruit and vegetables as a way of protecting their children from diseases and incurable conditions later in life.

The plan for a 'health in pregnancy' grant will be outlined by Health Secretary Alan Johnson this week in his first major speech outlining how the government plans to tackle the yawning health divide between the richest and poorest in England and Wales.

 

The payment - the first by a government that is allied to a specific health target - would be given to women when they are seven months pregnant. It would be linked to them receiving professional health advice on how to maintain a proper balanced diet, and give up drinking and smoking. The move comes as the government's record on improving public health will come under fresh scrutiny this week when Sir Derek Wanless, a former government adviser on the NHS, publishes a major report that will criticise lack of progress on tackling increasingly unhealthy lifestyles which have led to Britain's obesity epidemic. The report is expected to highlight poor eating habits, people's increasingly sedentary routines and the growing number of overweight people as areas where more determined action needs to be taken.

The pregnancy measure, to be introduced in 2009, is likely to prove highly controversial as women will be free to spend the money on drink or cigarettes. Sources told The Observer that the government accepts that some of the 630,000 women who become pregnant each year may choose not to spend the money on healthy food. There is also little published research to show that a financial incentive, combined with nutritional advice, is sufficient to persuade mothers from the most deprived areas to change their lifestyle.

 

It was decided it would be too complex, and possibly unfair, to means-test the payment and give it only to the poorest women. It is likely to be given as an extra child benefit, regardless of income.

 

The proposals, currently being scrutinised by the Treasury, are expected to cost between £70m and £80m a year. Health economists have argued that if women do buy good food, it would save the health service far more than that amount by preventing chronic diseases such as diabetes.

 

In his speech on Thursday, Johnson will lay out his vision for an NHS where preventative measures play a far greater role. He will point out that just under one in 12 children in England and Wales is born underweight - less than 5.5lbs. They are not only at greater risk of dying in infancy, but face long-term difficulties such as heart disease, diabetes, lung conditions and impaired cognitive development because their growth has been retarded in the womb by a lack of essential nutrients.

 

Another problem driving the high number of underweight babies is the fact that Britain has Europe's highest rate of teenage births, with an average of 26 children born to every 1,000 women aged between 15 and 19, more than four times the rate in Cyprus, Slovenia, Sweden or Denmark.

 

Brushing aside concerns about being seen as a 'nanny state', Gordon Brown has sanctioned his Cabinet to take a more interventionist approach when it comes to narrowing the life chances between rich and poor. This will include sending more nurses into deprived communities to support women who need the most NHS help but are most likely not to ask for it. A scheme pioneered in America is being trialled in Somerset under which nurses regularly help mothers who are struggling to cope.

 

Tam Fry, director of the Child Growth Foundation, said: 'We know that women who are well educated and with disposable income take their diet seriously during pregnancy and eat well, but for those lower on the social scale, without the education or the money or the help, it's tough. It's a sensitive issue to address, but it matters because the weight of a baby at birth can have a profound effect on their health further down the line.

 

'By the time a woman falls pregnant, she already needs to be eating well to give her baby the best chance. Tackling it halfway through the pregnancy is really a bit late, though it is very good that the government is waking up to the scale of the problem.'

 

One big health divide opening up is over tobacco, as women from deprived communities are four times more likely to smoke during pregnancy. Johnson will publish a health inequality strategy next summer which will launch a radical programme to try to lower the divide.

 

I came across this when i was looking for an article for my English homework, i believe that people will have many different views on this, so i thought it would be very interesting to discuss.

 

 

I think it is a ridiculous idea tbh

 

If it was actually provided in the form of money off vouchers for certain type of food brands and food I would support it but just handing cash out could result in money being spent on booze, fags and other stuff, too open to abuse for me to think this is a good idea

 

 

I agree, the problem with just handing out cash is the fact that they can spend it on whatever they desire, which in the long run wouldn't be very good. Also, what about teenage mums? Are they really going to spend it on a good diet?

regardless of whether the mother spends the money on healthy foods it is of little consequence to the baby.

 

By 7 months the baby will be almost fully formed - and any developments that benefit from a healthy diet have already occured.

 

A healthy diet is required from conception ..... so is a waste of money and quite a pointless act.

The responsible mothers-to-be will already be eating healthily. The irresponsible chavvy ones will spend the money on fags and buckfast. A total waste of tax payers money. -_-

 

It doesn't apply up here though. Just England by the looks of it.

Throwing cash at the problem will not solve anything. Fresh fruit will still be more expensive than McDonalds even if you have a spare £120 in your pocket. You have to educate people, not hand them money.

 

Imagine if the £80 million/year went into a massive public campaign urging women to make healthy choices during pregnancy. Imagine if it went into free resources available at clinics, schools and supermarkets, from printed nutrition guides to better training of nurses and social workers to promote nutrition. Surely this would be more effective.

Stupid idea, it be better in vouchers, like the milk vouchers, but what's the point, its just a waste of money, when the money can be funded elsewhere where people do need it.

How stupid! Those who are going to eat healthy for the sake of their health and their babies health are already eating healthy.

Vouchers would be better. They seem eager to throw money away sometimes...but to the wrong people.

i too find it stupid, those who know and care about healthy diets will do it anyway, those that dont will just spend OUR money on fags/drugs/alcohol...

Like everyone has said so far, STUPIDITY.

 

 

What's more frustrating is it is a GREAT scheme, except for one small, tiny flaw that makes the whole thing redundant. Surely it couldn't have been THAT difficult to ensure the vouchers could only be exchanged for certain goods? It beggars belief that nobody in the government appears to have thought of this, or is it just that it's too much work, are they just wanting to bang out policy after policy to look good without ACTUALLY checking to make sure it will actually work?

i too find it stupid, those who know and care about healthy diets will do it anyway, those that dont will just spend OUR money on fags/drugs/alcohol...

 

 

My thoughts exactly, what another stupid idea by the nanny state

Crazy idea. If they were going to do anything, vouchers would be better, but they would have to be given far earlier in the pregnancy than 7 months.

I agree - ridiculous.

 

Any responsible parent would eat well for the sake of their baby - anyone who doesn't deserve money as BRIBERY.