Sweets at checkout

Qualitymark

Orla K wrote: »

Someone please explain to me why your arguing over something that makes up 5% of the diet, at best. The other 95% matters a whole lot more. If sweets/chocolate were removed from the checkout it would make little difference to peoples health except have a little less stress if they're parents.

It would make a big difference to my health; I'd no longer have an earache from the skreeky whining of children and parents at each other!

Orla K

Qualitymark wrote: »

It would make a big difference to my health; I'd no longer have an earache from the skreeky whining of children and parents at each other!

But you'd still hear it in the aisles. Also how much does that actually happen. I can only remember hearing a child whining once and that was because it was tired.
Being a bit less aggravated for a few minutes a week won't do that much to you health.

I still don't know about this thread the stuff at the till make up for less than 5% of the diet.

Alf Veedersane

Orla K wrote:

still don't know about this thread the stuff at the till make up for less than 5% of the diet.

It's nonsense because it'd have so little impact it'd almost be pointless.

It's not a low-hanging fruit...it's fallen off and is rotting on the ground.

Mellor

This thread is ridiculous.
Sweets at checkouts isn't some devious tactic forcing sugar children upon. For the most part they are less assessible to kids than the bulk of the sweets which are on the aisle.
I'd be pretty confidant that the majority if sweets bought from the checkout stands are bought by adults for themselves.
I'd say they contribute to such a tiny percent of sweets/junk sold in the supermarket, that there is no significant difference between shops that do and don't have them at checkouts - other than that which is related to a difference customer demographic.

Sweets at checkouts are not the reason anyone has a bad diet. Adults, children a like. People need to take responsibility for their own choices, and the choices they make in behalf of their kids.

Qualitymark

Well, thanks for setting me right on that.

Why do you think Lidl in the UK got rid of the sweets at checkouts? This is one reason given: (http://www.canadiangrocer.com/worth-reading/lidl-removes-candy-from-the-checkout-in-u-k-36526)

Last year, Lidl U.K. trialled healthy checkouts replacing sweets with fruit and juice. Results showed sales went up 20%.

Mellor

Qualitymark wrote: »

Well, thanks for setting me right on that.

Why do you think Lidl in the UK got rid of the sweets at checkouts? This is one reason given: (http://www.canadiangrocer.com/worth-reading/lidl-removes-candy-from-the-checkout-in-u-k-36526)

That's a meaningless statistic. Lidl entire business template is based around promotional products. It's makes perfect sense that if they increased shelf units for fruit juice that they'd self more. It's about as relevant as increased BBQs gear in summer and raincoats in winter.
I note that they don't give figures for drop in sale of sweets/junk.


Also massive lol at replacing sugary sweets with sugary fruit juice. Obesity is solved !!! Hurray.

Qualitymark

No, despite your rude statement, this isn't meaningless: *overall* sales grew by 20%.

Mellor

Qualitymark wrote: »

No, despite your rude statement, this isn't meaningless: *overall* sales grew by 20%.

I was pretty direct with my point, but I don't see how I was rude. Other than laughing at Lidl's idea of healthy - hardly relevant to anyone here.

Are you suggesting that all sales grew by 20%? That's not what they are saying. Check a few other articles. What they are actually said happened was that sweet-free tills had 20% more customers.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-14/lidl-first-supermarket-to-ban-sweets-from-checkouts/

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4588040/


Which is unsurprising, some people would obviously choose those tils over others. But it means nothing in terms of the sale of sweets. The people who buying the sweets at tils aren't avoiding them, ergo it's meaningless.

Qualitymark

Ah, my misunderstanding; there's a pair of us in it.

But if sweet-free tills have 20% more customers, surely that in itself suggests that it's a good thing? (Except perhaps for the checkout clerk!)

Mellor

Not really. Assuming the tills were laid out evenly (big assumption given its a marketing department). It just means maybe 10% of people actively avoided the sweet tills. The rest just went about their business. This were probably people making smart choices anyway, so the net effect of sugar/sweets sales is prob very small, if there's any difference.

People have to make food choices multiple times a day. Sweets at the supermarket til is a once a week situation, it's not the problem.

Alf Veedersane

So, after all the nonsense of trying to ban sweets from the checkouts, the doctor went through her strategy for dealing with the kids asking for sweets.


It was ground-breaking.


She said 'no'.


Except on Friday.




The next step, obviously, is to lobby the government to legislate to remove Fridays from the calendar.

Qualitymark

Lidl made their checkouts sweets-free in Britain after polling their customers, and it made profit for them.

Marty McFly

For me it's pretty simple imo it shouldn't be up the government to legislate were supermarkets can and can't place products.

The government should bring in legislation to stop these companies actively targeting kids in advertisements but that's that another can of worms altogether.


To put it simple don't allow your child this kind of crap to begin with then they will not have a want for it.

I have a kid on the way and I can safely say I will be very strict on what is in the child's diet. There will be no sweets, coke etc in my house.

Qualitymark

Marty McFly wrote: »

To put it simple don't allow your child this kind of crap to begin with then they will not have a want for it.

I have a kid on the way and I can safely say I will be very strict on what is in the child's diet. There will be no sweets, coke etc in my house.

Ah yes. That was my theory too. Sweets only on Saturday. Unfortunately, it wasn't a theory shared by a family of neighbours (all of whom had all their teeth out before the age of 20); you can't stop your kid from getting sweets from friends, uncles, friendly neighbours… Good luck with your plan.

Marty McFly

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ah yes. That was my theory too. Sweets only on Saturday. Unfortunately, it wasn't a theory shared by a family of neighbours (all of whom had all their teeth out before the age of 20); you can't stop your kid from getting sweets from friends, uncles, friendly neighbours… Good luck with your plan.

It can work I'm confident enough, a friend of mine has a young daughter who he never gave sweets to apart from maybe Mc Donalds once a month which she does ask for at times but when in family houses etc when offered sweets shes asks for fruit and people are shocked why because she has never had it really to have a want for it.

Alf Veedersane

Qualitymark wrote: »

Lidl made their checkouts sweets-free in Britain after polling their customers, and it made profit for them.

Not quite.

It increased footfall.

In a survey for the supermarket, 68% of parents said they were pestered by their children for chocolate at the checkout, and 66% gave in some or all of the time.

Parents not able to say 'no' is the biggest problem.

vitani

Marty McFly wrote: »

It can work I'm confident enough, a friend of mine has a young daughter who he never gave sweets to apart from maybe Mc Donalds once a month which she does ask for at times but when in family houses etc when offered sweets shes asks for fruit and people are shocked why because she has never had it really to have a want for it.

I've managed for over three years so far. All of my friends and family know to ask me before offering any kind of 'treat' to my child and while she has the occasional sweet or piece of chocolate, it's not a regular thing. She's only ever had water or milk to drink as well.

Qualitymark

Letter in The Irish Times this morning about this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/sweets-on-display-at-checkout-counters-1.1743467

At a time when the country is struggling with the tragic effects of widespread childhood obesity it is reasonable to ask supermarkets to stop putting this rubbish on display where parents are blackmailed into buying.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

"struggling valiantly" = "no" ?

Qualitymark

I'm amazed that in a forum called Nutrition and Diet people are so eager for sweets to be at checkouts! I assume everyone here also fought the good fight to keep cigarettes on display?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

caring about nutrition and health doesn't automatically make you a fascist

Mellor

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm amazed that in a forum called Nutrition and Diet people are so eager for sweets to be at checkouts! I assume everyone here also fought the good fight to keep cigarettes on display?

I don't to think anyone is eager for sweets to be at checkouts. But most of us are also realistic about nutrition. Parents blaming sweets at checkouts for the poor diet they feed their kids is ridiculous, and pretty typical of people who couldn't be bothered to eat right.

Orla K

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm amazed that in a forum called Nutrition and Diet people are so eager for sweets to be at checkouts! I assume everyone here also fought the good fight to keep cigarettes on display?

I don't agree with banning chocolate/sweets at the checkout but I'm not eager for them to be there, I feel that there are far bigger issues with food in supermarkets rather than having bars at the checkout. I would rather pursue advertising of these foods, a closer look at how food is prepared and the ingredients used, also it has to be said giving the adults and children the tools to assist healthy choices. There's always going to be the choice of buying and eating these things whether they're at the checkout or not and to make any headway into taking on obesity, childhood or otherwise, we, as is society, are going to have to make people want to buy the better things and/or make them see that their choices are poor ones. I don't believe moving where the sweets are will do anything to tackle the problem.

And no I didn't fight 'the good fight' with cigarettes but we're not talking about fags.

Alf Veedersane

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm amazed that in a forum called Nutrition and Diet people are so eager for sweets to be at checkouts! I assume everyone here also fought the good fight to keep cigarettes on display?

There's a difference between thinking that parents should make better choices for their children and being eager for supermarkets to stock sweets at a checkout.

rubadub

Qualitymark wrote: »

I'm amazed that in a forum called Nutrition and Diet people are so eager for sweets to be at checkouts! I assume everyone here also fought the good fight to keep cigarettes on display?

I'm utterly amazed that you could come up with that assumption.

Qualitymark

rubadub wrote: »

I'm utterly amazed that you could come up with that assumption.

Why?

rubadub

Qualitymark wrote: »

Why?

Because they are not that related, a very weird jump. If it was people banning crisps at checkout along with sweets it would be a fair assumption. Not surprisingly nobody here has agreed with your presumption, which I don't think for one second was genuine, but a subtle shit stirring exercise.

Would you assume Ming Flanagan is also fighting the good fight to get methamphetamine & crack cocaine legalised? Or fighting the good fight to have the right to bear firearms in this country -a similar civil liberties issue, about as similar as your sweets & cigarettes comparison.