We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A FULL GOVERNMENT review to establish the “independent facts” about the possible health impact of 5G rollout should take place, according to Sinn Féin.
Launching its programme for the party’s Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in Derry this weekend, Donegal TD Pearse Doherty said the Ard Comhairle will be supporting a motion calling for the health and environmental concerns relating to 5G to be reviewed.
5G is the next step up from the 4G and 3G services offered through mobile phones. It is capable of much faster download and upload speeds. Vodafone was the first network to offer it to customers earlier this year, but many other mobile phone networks are now following suit.
A number of communities have voiced concerns about the arrival of 5G in Ireland, in particular the radiation levels it emits, the impact of mobile masts and associated infrastructure, and the radio waves impact on humans.
5G concerns
Councillors in Clare, Leitrim, Sligo and Wicklow have passed motions raising objections to 5G on health grounds, while protests have been held in towns such as Dingle in Kerry.
In light of the pushback, it was reported recently that Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy wrote to Ministers Richard Bruton and Eoghan Murphy stating that it would be a disaster for businesses if 5G was blocked in any way.
Speaking about the motion ahead of the Ard Fheis this weekend, Doherty said the Ard Comhairle of the party met on Saturday and discussed all the motions, including the ones on 5G, and decided to support the motion which calls for a full, independent review into the effects of 5G.
The motion also calls for the government to provide health warnings where applicable to citizens on such technologies.
The program for the Ard Fheis this weekend includes other motions on issues such as parking charges at hospitals, calling for fees to be scrapped. Another motion tackles the issue of the decriminalisation of drugs, calling for Ireland to follow the Portugese model.
Banning flags
A motion also calls on the Ard Fheis to “prohibit the display of paramilitary flags and banners, secure their immediate removal and prosecute those guilty of erecting them”. This is to include displays of other intimidatory flags and banners.
MP for Fermanagh/Tyrone Michelle Gildernew told reporters that during the summer hundreds of flags are seen hanging in towns across the North. She said that any flag that is hung up should only be done so for a limited time, and should then be removed.
She said that such flags are used by people who are “marking” their territory, and “needs to end”.
On the issue of whether Sinn Féin would be open to entering into government with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail, Doherty said they would be willing to discuss forming a government with either party.
Doherty said the party is willing to speak to either of the main parties, and a broader left coalition, in order to form a more progressive government.
“The current position goes back to last year’s Ard Fheis, which is Sinn Fein will only enter a coalition if we can secure an appropriate programme for government that delivers on our major issues,” Doherty said today.
“We need to see proper investment in housing, a solution to the perpetual crisis in health, a focus in relation to public finances, moves in preparation for Irish unity.
“But the position is, it would be up to the delegates of Sinn Fein, if we were satisfied we could secure that with any other coalition party, then we would go back to them.
“We’re open to it, if those parties are wiling to come on board, with a proper progressive policy platform.
“Now, that would be a big step for them to take, given we have these two conservative parties that have been in government for the last three years that have made the health and housing crisis worse, and widened the gap between income earners.
“Whether they’re willing to move on that would remain to be seen, but our position allows us to enter in those discussions,” he said.
Both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have ruled out entering into government with Sinn Féin.
Parents who cant be bothered feeding their children properly should be banned from being parents.
Interesting ban to try to enforce, that.
Also, where would the state provide the training and how would it carry out the testing in proper nutrition in order to make the initial determination as to potential parental fitness, and how would you carry out ongoing testing to ensure adherance to this?
(Answers on a postcard to the government that still hasn’t arrested anyone over the contents of the Murphy report…)
I think it was fairly obvious I was being intentionally glib in order to highlight the fact that ultimately, childrens nutrition is the responsibility of their parents.
It was. But then, it was also obvious that a ban on advertising doesn’t stop parents feeding children badly – you can cook bad meals at home just as easily as you can buy them in fast food places.
It did raise a good point though, in that the state doesn’t seem to help parents learn good nutrition and how to provide it for their kids…
Yes! I’d love to see all advertising targeting kids banned but especially junk food.
would you agree its up to the parent to decide what food their children eat people. we cant just start blaming childhood obesity on the fast companies its up to the adults to show some responsibility and just say no censorship is not the way education is
@michael I for one see no reason the state should not be able to make far greater interventions on childrens health. so I think yes parents do control their kids diet but I see not one reason thats a good thing and should continue as it is.
@Michael yes, I totally agree that it’s up to the parents to decide what food their kids eat and banning advertising is not a full solution but it will help a lot.
Children are so easily influenced by advertising and it’s difficult for them to understand the concept of junk food when it’s made to look so good and fun, often even healthy, on telly. I don’t look forward to having to explain to my daughter what McDonalds is and why she never gets it and why she can’t have a happy meal that comes with a shiny toy… And there are a lot of parents who are as influenced by advertising targeted at kids as their kids are and fall for the Ribena ‘made by mums’ line and other clever advertising slogans.
I think we can agree smoking bans have been successful. The tobacco lobby is one of the most powerful. Stop fannying about and lobby against this threat to our health. It’s costing us a fortune in hospital bills
Dammit Susan, I’m starvin’ for McDonalds chicken nuggets now! :D
Whoops!
Yes thanks Susan, have a salad with me but now feel compelled to go to Mc Donald’s. Thanks Aaron also for mentioning the Golden Arches ^_^
I eanted to vote ‘No’ but the conditions of my ‘No’ vote don’t comply with those attached.
Anyway, good luck at controlling Sky, UTV, Ch 4 and all other unrestricted signals received in our 26 counties.
Hi Conor,
I don’t want to stop people voting ‘no’ so I’ve made it more general, to take into account all reasons for voting no to any restrictions. Hope that means you can cast your vote now!
Thanks, Susan
A ban on advertising these foods would accomplish absolutely nothing. Labelling them would be a good move, if it was backed up with some education. It always amazes me how many people put salt on their food before eating it.
I agree. The ban would accomplish nothing whatsoever. At the end of the day it’s not the kids buying the food its the parents. You could ban the likes of McDonalds advertising but McDonalds will still be at the entrance to every shopping centre in the country.
The ban would accomplish nothing at all…
…except that it’d give a small amount of peace and quiet to parents who otherwise have to convince four-year-olds that the television is wrong and that chicken cooked at home where you know what went into the meal is better than whatever the heck went into a kids meal at McDonalds.
Peace and quiet at home -v- Profit margins in McDonalds and other commercial food companies.
Yeah, I know which I care about more.
Oh, and hell yes to the labelling please.
The more information the better.
Just bring in the fast food levy and be done with it
Hmm. This strikes me as being totally impractical. Who determines the levels as being unsafe and therefore falling into the relevant category? What will the levels of each dangerous item be? Is it just junk food (some of which is not fast food) or is it all fast food (some of which is healthy)? Will it be targeted at certain companies or in general? Take for example your average McDonalds – we all know it’s bad for you on a multitude of levels, including sugar and salt intake (not to mention the numerous other chemicals, fats, oils, etc.) So we can safely implement this restriction on McDonalds burgers and fries. But many other food items are also dangerous, particularly for children. A child’s (4-8yrs) RDA for salt/sodium is 1.2g. However, in just one slice of your typical brown sliced pan there is roughly 0.5g of sodium/salt (Supervalu’s own-brand brown bread has, per 38g slice of bread, 2g of salt and 5g of salt equivalent including sodium). 3 slices of bread a day and your child has already exceeded his/her daily salt intake. Not to mention any butter, cheese, meat, etc. that the child puts on the bread. Therefore we should also restrict bread – no more Brennan’s or Pat the Baker ads on TV. No more ads for crisps, chocolates (which is fine by me). No ads for butter or many cheeses. No ads for Denny bacon, sausages, or any other pork product which as we should all know is riddled with salt. No Sunday beef dinners. No ads for Oxo or Bisto or whatever branded instagravy you use. No more stock cubes. No more ads for McCain’s oven chips. And, knowing our government, all this would be done without educating the parents on the alternatives, who, let’s face it, have been educated by those very ads who dictate their product is wholesome and healthy, despite the fact it’s not.
Good point. I think it would just have to be an outright ban on all food advertising aimed at children. Would be easier to just ban all advertising targeted at children. That’s how it is in some countries and it seems to work.
But what about food advertisements not aimed at children, such as bread, breakfast meats, hams, instant gravies and soups? These are rarely aimed at children, but children eat those foods anyway? Who decides that one particular ad is bad because it’s aimed at a child (such as chips, crisps, chocolate, McDonalds, Supermac, etc.), while another ad promoting a food just as bad for the child gets aired because it’s deemed not to be aimed at the child (Brennan’s breads, Pat the Baker breads, Cuisine de France breads, Kerrygold butters and cheeses, Avonmore butters and cheeses, etc.)? Product placement is another concern. Placing McDonald’s or whatever in the middle of kid’s shows. Can we ban that? If we do ban that then McDonalds et al could request the banning of children eating bread in TV shows. This is why I think it’s impractical. Certainly there are good motivations behind it – but it just won’t work. Someone above compared cigarettes to food. But, unlike food, there are no variations on the topic of cigarettes – they are all bad and easy to remove from the public eye. Food, in all it’s variations, forms, levels of goodness/badness, targets, etc. is a far more complicated topic.
I don’t know, you have to check how they do it in other countries, I”m pretty sure advertising aimed at kids is banned in Sweden and/or other Scandinavian countries, maybe in Canada too? Just copy their model! Easy peasy ;-). I don’t think Oxo, butter, cheeses etc exactly TARGETS children. It’s very easy to see which ads are aimed at kids and which at adults.
Aye Tina, but I wish it was that simple. We all know what corporations are like these days. Banning food advertisements aimed at children would only see those companies change their method of delivery. Rather than aiming their food at children they would simply aim it at a general audience. Children would still be exposed. And if you then wanted to ban the likes of McDonalds et al outright you run into the problem of unfair competition by allowing other companies such as Brennan’s (and I really don’t mean to be singling out individual companies here – they are just off the top of my head) to advertise.
This is true, Brian, but it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t even try to control it a bit. Even some controls would be better than the current situation.
I totally agree Tina. I think though that we have to be careful if we don’t want the wrath of the EU down on us or face legal action by other companies which could ultimately undermine any positive actions or policies implemented by the Government. Personally I think some form of health and culinary class should be made compulsory for all children – a class or course whereby all the nutritional information is provided as well as the culinary skills necessary to cook the food. The fact of the matter is we are sending our kids by the tens of thousands into the world on their own and all they know how to cook is boiled eggs toast and beans – is it any wonder they then turn to fast food, and as they can’t cook, they then foist that on their kids.
Parents should teach their kids the dangers.
As a parent i can say no to my kids. I don’t need someone else telling me what my kids should and shouldn’t be eating. Ireland is really becoming a nanny state. Its ridiculous. Just like the hundreds of ads for xmas and my son asking for everything he sees, the word no will be used then too. Anyway when kids see something new in an ad its forgotten about 2 minutes later. This country has gone mad
Hear hear Sharon – This whole thread is ridiculous. My kids get home cooked meals 13 out of 14 days and a McDonalds or a Burger King or a takeaway every couple of weeks. Big deal! Just say NO the rest of the time….
Sharon and Paul, why don’t the pair of you let us know how that’s going for you in a few years time when your kids have access to their own money? If you think that you as parents are the only influence on how your children’s view of the world is shaped you are mistaken. Also, not that this necessarily applies to either of you, ‘home-cooked’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘good’. I am quite sure many people would be surprised at just how unhealthy some of the things they feed their children (and themselves) are; breakfast cereals, orange juice, bread, pasta, baked beans, sausages, yoghurts, shop bought soups….
@Linda… I totally agree with you re Home Cooked being just as unhealthy as fast food in a lot of instances. I posted on another post a while back about food waste and the cost of eating fresh food versus the cost of ready/processed/frozen food.
I am an advocate for fresh, local produce. We have our own vegetables, hens and lamb. We buy locally where possible and shop around for bargains. We have 3 highly active (Which is the key by the way), healthy children and our weekly shopping bill rarely exceeds 60 euros. We eat freshly prepared food, all day every day… The kids get a fast food treat about once every two weeks! I totally stand over it.
State intervention has worked well in the area of cigarettes and tobacco but, as I posted before on another comment thread, a proper education program and a schools led “Home Ec” type program would go much further then a ban on fast food… IMHO.
The majority vote here is YES so far.
There are two ways of looking at it. Yes, it’s probably a good thing if a child does not grow up seeing fast food ads everywhere and the commercials making eating these foods cool and popular to children. That’s how I voted anyway.
But at the same time, are we so bad at being parents, at being sensible, mature, informed adults that we cannot do the right thing by our children and not adopt an unhealthy lifestyle for their sakes. Do we actually need other people telling us how to raise our children? Do we not love our children enough to do what’s right and not what’s popular? Do we say “No, Jimmy we are not buying takeout just because Johnny gets it, it’s not good for you”, or do we say – ” It’s my child and I will raise him how I see fit as a parent”.
Or maybe you are on a very low income and fast food is cheaper – who can judge then? Food, however bad is better than no food. I think most parents do what they can.
Peoples perception of what a good parent is, varies greatly – some people have no clue, some are too strict.
In the end – it’s not enough that you love your child – you have to care and that means making decisions that your child won’t like, saying no, being a parent and not a best friend.
I cooked for my daughter and made sure she ate all the right things growing up…but on trips out we had junk food as a treat. To me that was okay. Was I a good parent?
Then again bad, lazy parents will feed their children these foods anyway because they grew up eating them themselves and don’t actually cook healthy food at home.
I voted yes, because I thought it was the right thing to do… kids will still get fast food and junk if their parents wish it.
Those who wish to scream “nanny state” should bear in mind that a nanny’s job is to assist parents with raising their children, even the negligent ones.
Also, banning advertising will not prevent certain types of parent from feeding their children crap, because they will still know where to find it in the supermarket, so there is no infringement of their freedom to ruin their children’s health.
Lastly, I’m appalled when I see what some companies will sell, especially to children, just to make money. There is no thought whatsoever for anyone or anything except the bottom line. This leads me to believe that the only solution to the problem of junkfood, like the solution to many other societal ills, is to tax it until its cost to the health service is recouped.
How would they decide which foods to tax? Some baby foods contain more sugar than the average biscuit? I’m not in favour of a total ban in advertising, but a huge reduction during prime time kids’ TV would be beneficial. Parents may have total control when kids are small, but it’s much harder to monitor a child’s diet as he gets older. There’s also too much of a dependence on sweets as a treat or reward. My 1 year old had an injection recently and the nurse presented him with a lollipop which he promptly clamped between his teeth breaking off a large chunk which I had difficulty removing without losing a finger. The dependence on junk food is fostered from a very early age and children are well hooked by the time they’re 4 or 5.
As a parent of a son with a special diet I’m not overly surprised by some of the revelations here about the salt and fat content of some foods so on the face of it I would agree to a ban of adds for junk food aimed at kids, I think most people would. Its how to enforce such a ban thats the problem. I love the idea of educating kids, and parents too, about correct nutrition and how to cook but I think the chef, Jamie Oliver, tried something similar with mixed results. He discovered that many families now don’t even have a table and chairs from which to eat their meals off and instead eat take outs or microwave meals in front of the TV.
I often wonder if the adds we see with a muscled and tanned teenaged model shown jogging into a McWassaname for a triple deck McBurger and fries were to show the same scene 12 months later. The now 18 stone, lad would collapse out of breath into a booth (the wee chair can no longer hold his weight) he takes out his Accu-Chek diabetes monitor and checks his blood sugar levels before ordering his double triple deck McBurger and fries, as he finishes the lot he’s last seen clutching his chest. Exaggerated no doubt, but isn’t this what the advertising industry do?
Its not called “junk food” for nothing and while we all know about all these other things that may also be bad or harmful for us we have to start somewhere and these are aimed at our kids, a real “get ‘em while they’re young” mentality. If we make a stand now and educate our kids we may have a chance of breaking the cycle, the next generation may not be overweight, may cringe at high salt or fat levels and may even be able to do something strange and weird like… cook… for themselves. Maybe, just maybe they’ll be a bit smarter than us.
Yes
The "Parental Skills" course will be starting this September at your local Fás training centre… Available to all dipsh1ts from all levels of society!!!
Can someone define “Junk food and Drink” please? Are we going to ban orange juice if it rots your teeth? what about actimels? they full of sugar!
Ban junk food advertising aimed at kids… nice theory, but is that going to translate to ITV? Channel 4? Nickelodeon? Few enough kids watch only Irish stations I would imagine, so its just not going to be effective. Parents feed their kids, and arent going to stop feeding them junk because there’s no more McDs ads aimed at children…
And will this restriction on free speech be in the name of public morality or public order?
What is happening to parental control? Who puts the food on the table for children? Responsibility towards children starts in the home… Compulsory cookery classes in school would be a better option.
Leave it up to parents to raise their children and stop the nanny state telling us how to live.
I agree with John Beggan. As a father myself with 2 small children I take them to McDonalds at most once or twice a month.
Obesity today is a cause for alarm. Look at the American population and to a certain extent even our own country. I was a 20 year old in the 60s and the general population were much thinner than today.
I believe parents giving their children the wrong food at this period in their lives is creating problems of obesity at a later stage.
I am not a medical man but I have had some personal experience of the above. My partner thought it was great stuffing ‘solid’ baby food down the throat of my little baby son when he was only 5 months old. On one occasion she kept feeding him ‘solids’ until he threw it all back up. Today, at 10 years of age, he is slightly obestic and I believe his system was triggered as a result of what happened 10 years ago.
I relate this because I feel what we feed our children today will determine how they will be later in life.
In general I find my children enjoy good food. Sometimes they would want me to take them to McDondalds but instread I would head to a hotel carvery and guess what? they would clear their plates of good wholesome vegs, boiled potatoes and loads of roast beef, lamb or pork – whatever meats on the menu.
As parents we must say NO the McDonalds of this world. They are after all OUR children and we must be responsible parents.
Today my son takes a certain amount of ‘slagging’ as a result of his excess weight. Therefore he has a social stigma to deal with which I believe could have been avoided.
have your say