Great Western Coffee Shop

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/09/ban-everyone-eating-drinking-trains-buses-end-britains-snack/

It is not a request, but a recommendation in the Chief Medical Officers report on child obesity. One of many, which also include more use of active and sustainable transport, e.g. walking, cycling, trains and buses.

 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/time-to-solve-childhood-obesity-cmo-special-report (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/time-to-solve-childhood-obesity-cmo-special-report)
or specifically Recommendation 2.3 on p.17
 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/837907/cmo-special-report-childhood-obesity-october-2019.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/837907/cmo-special-report-childhood-obesity-october-2019.pdf)

The Telegraph reaction is much as one would expect from a paper that regularly rants about "nanny state".

But the underlying problem is serious for people's future health and the NHS, and certainly nobody else in government has made any rational suggestions about any sort of solution.

The Telegraph and its like will probably be happy that this will be her last report as CMO.

I would imagine the main concern on this forum would be any effect on food trolleys and buffets!

The article starts


Only in the summary at the end does it add that it's urban transport.   Which (noting a post from CyclingSic as I write) leaves the trolley services and pullman restaurants safe.

So if I’m going on a long journey I go hungry? That can’t be good for health neither?

It says "urban" in the summary so until the UK is all built up ... you should be OK.   Wonderful scope for defining "urban", mind you!

If it the standard government geographical definition of urban rural it could be a bit on/off. Urban in Reading then rural then urban in Swindon. The case of the vanishing tea trolley!

A restriction to urban transport doesn't seem to be mentioned in either the BBC or the Guardian.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49975720
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/10/childrens-health-england-must-be-put-ahead-of-profits-says-chief-medic

It might be there and I've missed it. But then so will other people!

For a certain individual yes. I would imagine when the said person saw the headline his jaw dropped.

Never going to happen, just more nonsense headlines in a paper
Can you imagine an uproar say it someone with diabetes was needing to eat and as a result were taken ill!!

Or maybe it is all just a ploy to get rid of the trolleys?

The source of all this is one of the ex-CMO's recommendations - going back to the original, we find:

There is no mention of this in the body of the report, and to my mind it's a huge non-sequitur - something chucked in at the last minute without much thought. Is not forbidding eating on buses really "a signal or an incentive to consume unhealthy food and drinks"? That certainly wants demonstrating.

Having said that, I suspect that such bans exists in a lot of places, here and abroad, but are not enforced (e.g. in bylaws). I do remember it being the case on German S-bahns, for example (but probably better enforced!).

So what lucky group of people are going to police that? Daft thinking...substitute snacks for sale with packets of sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, nuts and coco nibs etc...give them away free to approx. under 12 years or whatever

I think this whole thing is a non starter. I suspect the well meaning CMO was thinking about snacks on busses and I cant see for a moment how you would define a short distance rail journey. e.g. I am sure an IET Paddington to PZ would not be seen as short distance but what about if the IET trolley sells a snack between ST Germans and Liskeard??
Not worth bothering about IMHO

BBC Wiltshire had a snippet on the news this morning where they spoke to a Swindon bus driver whose comments were along the lines of "a nice idea, but who is going to enforce it. No sensible bus driver is going to put themselves at risk by trying to enforce it".

ref BBC Wiltshire show.

I presume that must have been Ben Prater who grew up in Sea Mills(Bristol) and supports Bristol City?

No. Mid day news

Fair enough,but BP is still a Bristol boy and a Bristol City follower.

………...I'm a bit worried about Broadgage, I thought he'd be frothing at the mouth by now!  ;)

Bus drivers managed to enforce the smoking ban when that came in. If an eating ban had the force of law it should be a similar situation (and IIRC smoking was banned on buses before the general public places legal ban).

The big difference is that everybody eats, far from everybody smokes, and no-one ever got sick through passive eating. Members of the public were prepared to challenge anyone lighting up, and it quickly ceased to be an issue. In my local village pub, by the way, there was a discussion days before the ban came into force, with a small number arguing that the police hadn't been seen in the village since one got lost in 1978, so we can just carry on. Then one asked the landlord, patiently listening, what his view was. In a nutshell, he would ban anyone who tried it. It's the law, his licence would be in jeopardy, which is the other side of Devon, and he hasn't liked cigarette smoke since he managed to kick the habit.

But food - I usually set off on a long train journey with a decent packed lunch and a couple of tinnies or a small bottle of something, but not on the bus. Maybe a polo or similar, but how many would I need to eat to fall foul of the law, I wonder?

This is the same Dame Sally, btw, who told us there was no safe dose of alcohol, prompting many to quit counting, and whose fatwah on red meat has recently been overturned by somebody who is paid more. She is missing the point anyway - scrap public transport on the assumption that everyone will walk, and we'll all be fit as butchers' dogs in no time.

Happy retirement, your Ladyship, good luck in the pantomime season, and don't tread on any mines. And greet broadgage for me if you see him...

BBC has posted some public reaction at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49999054 ...including a picture of child on a train eating a banana ... which I rather thought might actually be good for him.

The urban is repeated:






Clive, I love buying a curry at King's Cross and eating it on the train to Cambridge - would you deny me that?  ;D

Only frothing slightly, since I doubt that this will ever happen, as has already been said who is going to enforce it?
GWR have however made a start.

At least two reports on line referred to the proposal to ban "smacking on public transport" to limit childhood obesity. Now how would that help ? smelling pistake perhaps  :)

Swindon buses' conditions don't mention food per se, though they go on about being messy and unpleasant as reasons for being thrown off. But that's unusual - some food is usually "banned" (down to the driver, of course). Examples:

First West of England: 

Stagecoach:

I'd imagine that a blanket "no eating food of any kind" would be easier* to enforce than "don't eat what I say you can't".

* On second thoughts, not easier - I really meant simpler.

Lest anyone think otherwise, I am not against prohibitions per se, I just don't see the sense very clearly. I was fully in support of the smoking ban, partly on the grounds of public health, long researched and established in science, partly because me and tobacco went our separate ways on 12 May 1991 and I don't like it any more, and partly because I could have a crafty pint on the way home and not come home smelling like I had been in the pub.

Like Rogerw, I read the conditions of carriage and wondered how the interpretation of the rules would work. "In the opinion of the driver" lays another weight on already burdened shoulders, and accusations of bias if, for example, you were refused permission to continue to eat your delicius and nourishing steak slice by a vegan.