National Good Food Nation Plan: consultation analysis

Views of Children and Young People

230. The following table outlines the profile of those who responded to this element of the consultation.

231. Throughout the Children and Young People’s survey, many respondents tended to give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers without expanding upon these.

232. Question 1 of the Children and Young People’s Survey asked:

Q1: What in your view would be different about children's lives in a Good Food Nation compared to now?

233. Out of the 1085 total respondents to the Children and Young People’s Survey, 1047 answered this question, almost all positively. The most mentioned theme, cited by a significant minority, was that children would have access to, or be eating more, healthier food. Healthier food was described as that which is more nutritious, contains vitamins and proteins, is organic or is food appropriate regarding age or body type. It was also envisaged that these types of foods would be as at least as cheap as unhealthy food. Allied to this were a significant minority who foresaw that children would have a better diet. There were a small minority who specified that there would be better school meals. Similar numbers thought children would be eating less unhealthy food such as sweets, takeaways and processed food, because of available (and comparably priced) alternatives.

234. A small minority foresaw that there would be greater food choice, particularly in terms of access to fruit and vegetables, with smaller numbers thinking that food would look or taste better.

235. A second main theme (from a significant minority) thought that food in general would be cheaper and more affordable, citing free school meals as an example. This would have the positive impact of making more money available for other things. Smaller minorities foresaw less hunger or less food poverty (e.g. less need for food banks and fewer homeless people). Associated with this, a significant minority predicted that every child would have full and equal access to food.

236. The final main theme from answers (more so from the teacher-led category than the 13+ group) was that children (and other people) would be healthier, with small minorities each predicting:

• Better mental health (e.g. happier children with better behaviour and concentration).
• Better physical health (more energy, fitter, more active, helping children grow, etc.).
• Fewer health problems (e.g. obesity, heart issues, diseases).

237. A small minority said that children would have better lives without expanding on this further.

238. Smaller minorities of children said that:

• Children would be better informed and educated about food and food benefits; for example, knowing where food comes from, increased willingness to try new foods and learn cooking methods.
• There would be environmental benefits such as less pollution, less transportation, packaging and waste and food sustainability improvements.
• There would be more access to locally produced food such as local or farmers markets, local shops.
• There would be business opportunities and other economic benefits.

239. Lastly, a small minority (disproportionately made up of children over 15 years old) thought their lives in a GFN would not be different. Reasons varied between those who thought they already ate healthily and those who wanted to eat the foods they liked. A significant minority said they did not know what difference a GFN would make.

240. Question 2 asked:

Q2: The Scottish Government thinks that every child in a Good Food Nation should:

• get and enjoy healthy food that is right for their age
• have many chances to learn about food.
• never experience hunger.

Is there anything you would like to add or change?

241. This question was answered by 1030 respondents. A majority agreed with the list and had nothing to add. Most other answers expanded on the topics of the three statements.

242. Food affordability was the most mentioned theme, albeit only mentioned by a small minority. Children reinforced that there should always be affordable options, suggesting free school meals for all pupils as well as free or affordable snacks, fruit, meat, noodles or milk. Smaller numbers wanted to ensure equity of access of food for all.

243. Better access in terms of food choice was urged by similar numbers. It was intimated this would encourage children to make healthy choices. Suitable food choices for those from different cultures and with dietary needs (e.g. because of allergies) was also requested.

244. Slightly smaller numbers reinforced that children should have access to healthier, better quality, sufficiently nutritious food. Improvements to school food, fresher food and clean drinking water access were all mentioned in relation to this. Further requests were about having food that is enjoyable and looks and tastes good rather than bland and unappealing food.

245. A small minority reinforced the importance of learning opportunities about food, with a few saying this should be from a young age. Many of these responses focused on children having the chance to cook or make healthy food in school. Further mentions concerned having the chance to grow food or to enhance home economics by making this more frequent or compulsory. A few responses referred to learning about environmental benefits and impacts.

246. Finally, there were also a few mentions of striking a balance between healthy eating and eating treats.

247. Question 3 asked:

Q3: Outcome 1: Everyone in Scotland eats well. They can easily get safe, healthy, affordable, environmentally friendly food that suits their age and culture. Do you think this is a right Outcome for a Good Food Nation? Please share your comments below.

248. This question was answered by 1058 respondents. A large majority agreed with the Outcome, with some saying that this was important for making a GFN.

249. The main reason for supporting the Outcome (from a significant minority) was that everyone will be treated fairly and equally in term of food access so that it helps everyone. Small minorities said that the Outcome should enable access to healthy, nutritious food and a better diet. Similar numbers said it should enable better food choices and variety for differing needs, including food that is right for various ages.

250. Smaller numbers thought the Outcome promotes food safety and will prevent people getting ill.

251. A small minority thought the Outcome will help with food affordability, with some remarking that food is too expensive and urging free or cheaper school meals. Smaller numbers thought it would help prevent hunger and poverty.

252. The Outcome was seen as an enabler for better health by similar numbers of children. Smaller numbers saw environmental benefits arising from local production and a reduced use of pesticides.

253. A small minority disagreed with the Outcome, in the main expressing doubts that everyone can eat well, citing affordability concerns regarding healthy food. There was also concern about whether the Outcome can be achieved due to the amount of government support needed and due to some people preferring unhealthy food to healthy food.

254. Question 4 asked:

Q4: Outcome 2: Scotland’s food system is good for the natural environment, the climate, wildlife, and animal welfare. Do you think this is a right Outcome for a Good Food Nation? Please share your comments below.

255. The question was answered by 1048 respondents. A large majority again agreed with the Outcome, though in a slightly smaller proportion than with Outcome 1.

256. A variety of reasons were given for supporting this Outcome. Small minorities each cited the following:

• Better animal welfare (e.g. no battery chickens, factory farming).
• Better for the environment (e.g. the better the environment the better it is for people).
• Better for the climate (e.g. helps stop climate change, more stable climate makes it easier to grow food).
• It will help stop the destruction of the planet.
• Beneficial for nature (e.g. keeps wildlife safe).

257. Other reasons tended to revolve around improvements in food quality and sustainability. These included more local food production, the ability to grow more fruit and vegetables, fresher food being more available, fewer import requirements and less need for transport. Long-term food sustainability and security was also mentioned. A small minority foresaw that a sustainable, good food system would help to create a better natural environment. A further knock-on benefit was that people would be healthier with a ‘natural’ (e.g. organic) food system.

258. As part of the food system, there were a small minority of responses who advocated the reduction of packaging and packaging waste, with a few mentions of replacing plastics with more biodegradable or reusable packaging.

259. A small minority disagreed with Outcome 2. The main concerns were over the use of, and pollution caused by, chemicals and additives used in food processing, and over animal welfare. In the latter case, there were a few concerns over animals’ diets being impacted by harmful waste and fertilisers.

260. Question 5 asked:

Q5: Outcome 3: Scotland’s food system helps everyone to have good physical and mental health. Do you think this is a right Outcome for a Good Food Nation? Please share your comments below.

261. The question was answered by 1036 respondents. A large majority again cited general agreement with the Outcome, a similar proportion to that agreeing with Outcome 2.

262. The largest numbers – a significant minority of respondents – believed this Outcome would be helpful for improved mental health, particularly with respect to better sleep and concentration. Slightly fewer thought this would be beneficial for physical health. Comments included references to improved fitness, better energy levels, helping children to grow and helping people live longer.

263. A small minority envisaged the Outcome as helping people’s health without specifying any further detail. There were also some mentions of fewer health problems such as obesity and diabetes.

264. There was one other main theme expressed about this Outcome. A significant minority added the caveat that the Outcome was right as long as everyone has access to and consumed healthy nutritious food. There were also a few comments about eating less unhealthy food.

265. A few responses each reiterated the need for healthier food to be cheaper, the importance of a balanced diet and encouraging exercise and sport as part of improving peoples’ health.

266. A small minority disagreed that Outcome 3 is a right Outcome. Concerns were expressed about Scotland’s food currently being too unhealthy to help due to the prevalence and ease of purchasing junk food and sweets, for example. There was also some worry about not being able to eat the food people want to or need to because of dietary requirements. Similarly, a few respondents were unsure that good food would help with mental health, especially if it meant people could no longer eat their favourite foods.

267. Question 6 asked:

Q6: Outcome 4: Scotland is known around the world for high-quality food. Our food and drink industry is successful and forward-thinking. It is an important part of the national and local economy. It supports and creates good jobs. Do you think this is a right Outcome for a Good Food Nation? Please share your comments below.

268. The question was answered by 1014 respondents. A large majority cited general agreement with the Outcome, in similar proportions to those agreeing with Outcomes 2 and 3.

269. The largest numbers – albeit a small minority – agreed the Outcome would support jobs, citing increased job creation and choices. There was also some mention of increased employment helping with food affordability as this was perceived to help people provide for themselves and their families. Advantages were also foreseen in terms of fair pay and fair producer pricing within the food industry.

270. Further mentions were made about improved access to high-quality food helping with health and facilitating food safety and hygiene.

271. Smaller numbers agreed that Scotland should be recognised for its good food industry. Respondents commented that this would raise Scotland’s profile overseas, help with exports and boost visitor numbers.

272. Similar numbers said the Outcome would be helpful to the economy including the local economy, with a few mentions in favour of supporting local food businesses and farms. A few respondents envisaged a positive knock-on effect of more public money being available for investments in, for example, schools and hospitals.

273. A small minority disagreed that this was a right Outcome. Concerns were again raised about the costs and affordability of good food. There was also some disagreement that Scotland is known for high-quality food.

274. Question 7 asked:

Q7: Outcome 5: Scotland has a good food culture. Scottish people are interested in and educated about good and sustainable food. Do you think this is a right Outcome for a Good Food Nation? Please share your comments below.

275. The question was answered by 1011 respondents. A large majority again cited general agreement that this was a right Outcome, in similar proportions to agreeing with Outcomes 2, 3 and 4.

276. The main response, cited by a significant minority, recognised the importance of everyone being more educated about food. This included food choices and explanations about a healthy and balanced diet, nutrients, traditional foods and other food cultures. There was some comment that more teaching was needed at primary school level, and that children needed the chance to cook or make healthy food in school.

277. A small minority envisaged that knowledge is good for long term food sustainability (e.g. not wasting food), with associated environmental benefits.

278. A small minority highlighted the importance of enjoyment of food (particularly healthy foods), reasoning that if food tastes good, it will help encourage people to eat it.

279. Similar numbers foresaw that increased interest would help facilitate access to healthier foods by stimulating demand and therefore production. This would also lead to improvements in people’s health.

280. Amongst the small minority who disagreed that Outcome 5 is a right Outcome, there were some perceptions that many people are not interested in learning about food and that more interesting ways need to be found to educate people about food. A few responses disagreed that Scotland has a good food culture.

281. Question 8 asked:

Q8: Outcome 6: Decisions we make in Scotland are good for food systems here and around the world. We share and learn from what other countries are doing. Do you think this is a right Outcome for a Good Food Nation? Please share your comments below.

282. The question was answered by 1008 respondents. A large majority again cited general agreement that this was a right Outcome, in similar proportions to those agreeing with Outcomes 2, 3, 4 and 5.

283. The main theme, cited by a significant minority, was that it was good to share ideas and information about food systems to see how we can learn from other countries to make Scotland’s food better. Benefits were foreseen such as widening food choice, broadening inclusivity and helping to stop global malnutrition. Other perceived spin-off benefits were improved health, better environmental health and in aiding good relations with other countries.

284. A small minority commented that other countries could learn from Scotland, perhaps by starting their own GFNs.

285. Among the small minority who saw drawbacks with Outcome 6, it was perceived that some countries’ foods are less healthy than Scotland’s, or that Scotland’s food was not good quality and therefore it was not right to share it. Other responses referred to difficulties in sharing food experiences effectively (e.g. because of differing climates) or a preference to use local foods rather than imports.

286. Question 9 asked:

Q9: Is there anything missing from the set of 6 Outcomes that you think is important in a Good Food Nation?

287. The question was answered by 972 respondents. A large majority said that nothing needed to be added, agreeing the Outcomes covered everything important to become a GFN. Most other responses reiterated views expressed about the individual Outcomes.

288. A small minority either emphasised the importance of, or requested, low cost or free food availability, particularly in regard to school lunches.

289. A few or small numbers of respondents each cited the following as important:

• Reducing food waste.
• Taking action on packaging (e.g. recycling, clear labelling).
• Having enjoyable/tasty food.
• Community input (e.g. growing food, involvement in projects and decision-making).
• Reducing the prevalence of poor quality food.
• Getting food to the homeless (e.g. food which would otherwise be wasted).

290. A small minority of comments reiterated the importance of everyone having sufficient access to food, of access to food variety and choice, and of healthy food accessibility (e.g. school meals). There were also some reiterations about the importance of wider knowledge and education about food.

291. Question 10 asked:

Q10: Do you have any suggestions for what the Scottish Government could do to help Scotland become a Good Food Nation?

292. The question was answered by 986 respondents. A majority said they had no suggestions, with a small minority approving of the current proposals.

293. By far the most suggestions (from a significant minority overall) again referred to help with food costs, with requests to make food more affordable for all. These included cheaper or free school meals for all school pupils. Respondents also wanted action to ensure everyone has enough food and to eliminate hunger. In particular, a small minority desired action to help feed the poor and homeless, with some suggesting an increase in food bank numbers.

294. A small minority again urged access to, and promotion of, quality or healthy foods (e.g. fruit, vegetables, pulses). Allied to this were suggestions to make supermarket aisles better looking, and to introduce better qualities and varieties of school food. Wider knowledge and more education about this, and the GFN, was also recommended.

295. Additionally there were a small minority of requests for more diverse food options, more fresh food and more locally grown or sourced food (e.g. for school meals).

296. Furthermore, there were requests to take action on poor quality foods. Suggestions included reducing sugar content and restricting junk food and takeaways by banning them or making them more expensive. At the same time a small minority wanted action to make healthy food cheaper.

297. Regarding environmental aspects, there were calls to campaign for more sustainability, for taking action to reduce food waste, and to take action to reduce or recycle packaging. On the latter, better labelling was requested as well as more appealing packaging for healthy foods.

298. Supportive action for farming was also advocated by a small minority. There were calls to support better pay and more farmers markets and shops, as well as an eco-friendly approach to farming. On the latter there were a few calls to remove pesticides from food production processes.

299. Finally, a small minority wanted to see more government funding and investment, and for the government to put the outcomes and ideas behind the GFN into action.