THE GOVERNMENT announced this week an authoritarian policy that has no place in a civilised society. No, I don’t mean the terrible Prevention of Terrorism Bill. I am talking about new Labour’s latest plans to make Britain “a healthier and fitter nation” — surely enough to send a shudder through any freedom-loving citizen.

For a start, children “with support from parents and health workers” will have to “draw up personal health plans for life” setting out how they intend to eat “the right kind of food” and to do enough exercise. An army of ominous sounding community matrons will be recruited “to help them lead healthier lifestyles”. Schools will “encourage kids to think about the amount of exercise they take” — thinking about exercise presumably being considered less risky than actually letting kids play football or throw snowballs. Meanwhile, the crusade to save our children from evil junk food will continue, fronted by Jamie Oliver on his personal quest to slay the turkey twizzler.

It should no more be the business of government to determine what our children eat or how they play than it is to lock anybody up without trial. Yet unlike that draconian Bill, these extraordinary measures have attracted no controversy. Anything done in the name of promoting public health and tackling child obesity is now apparently deemed beyond question.

So, in the interest of healthy debate, here are some questions we are not supposed to ask. In the first place, is there a genuine “epidemic” of child obesity in Britain? Recent research using the Department of Health’s own data and applying the international standard of assessment found no evidence of an exponential rise in child obesity rates.

Does diet really determine health? There is scant evidence to support the Government’s statement that “about one third of cancers can be attributed to poor diet and nutrition”. There is still less to back its claim that eating five portions of fruit and veg a day can reduce the risk of death from heart disease or cancer by as much as 20 per cent. Most people die of such chronic diseases because they are old, and in the end we all have to die of something. The Department of Health has yet to offer us a magic apple of eternal life.

And anyway, what’s so awful about children eating some processed or fast food? Of course it is not a good idea to eat turkey twizzlers, or anything else, for dinner every day. But there is truly no such thing as “junk” food. All food provides nutrition, and burgers break down into the same fats and acids as prime steak or fine cheese. Contrary to the assertion made by Our Hero on Jamie’s School Dinners, a portion of chips cooked from frozen contains more vitamin C and fibre than an apple, not to mention more fun.

All of which suggests that the campaign for “heathier lifestyles” is less about improving our health than indicating how we ought to live. Of course, the authorities insist that they only want to help us make “informed choices”. That means they will inform us which is the correct choice to make. What we eat and feed our families is being rebranded as a moral rather than a nutritional matter. Soon all foods containing “too much” fat, salt and sugar will carry red warning signs. They might as well stick on a label saying “For irresponsible individuals and bad parents only”.

I want my young children to eat well and be healthy. But I would far rather feed them a turkey twizzler than have them swallow the twaddle about making personal health plans for life.

• AND LO, the politicians said unto the lame, “Take up your beds and walk — to the television studios”. The fashion for political parties to use disgruntled patients and other “ordinary people” to make their case reveals a lot about the dim view today’s politicians take of us, and of themselves.

  One Tory official explains that “politics are too clinical and stage-managed, they can be so bloody boring. We are trying to inject a bit of feeling into it”. Translation: “We know that we have no big ideas or leaders that can inspire the electorate. But we hope that one authentic emotional outburst from an angry and preferably weepy mother might make more impact on the simple-minded voters than a dozen speeches by Michael Howard.”

  Farewell real politics, welcome to the age of reality tele-elections.

  Mick.Hume@Spiked-online.com

Times Recommends

• Britain doesn’t need a dose of shock therapy
• Why the sea eagle has no right to land here
• Let older women have a voice at the BBC