Do we need a snacking ban on public transport?

Photography by Josh Wilburne

Tatiana Škultétyová questions the value of new suggestions to impose a public transport snacking ban, considering difficulties in its practical implementation.

A recent Chief Medical Officer report shows that in the past 25 years the number of obese children (aged 10-11) has more than tripled and, in fact, a new category of “extremely obese” had to be added. Undeniably, the growing number of overweight and obese people is a massive issue of today and something needs to be done to keep our population healthy; recently there have been pushes to do just that. In 2014, the government implemented the sugar tax, and has now a published report by its Chief Medical Officer making 49 new recommendations to address growing obesity rates. Among the recommended strategies are some common ones, such as calls for more research, but the one that has drawn the most attention is the proposed ban on snacking on public transport. 

Eating and drinking while on urban buses, trams and trains would be banned under the proposal. This would apply to both adults and children, with the exception of those with a medical need to eat. While the premise of decreasing the opportunity to consume additional calories is straightforward, the notion of applying this to the commute is rather questionable. 

For many, their morning commute is the first time during the day they actually have a minute to have something to eat. Similarly, after a busy day of school or work, it might be the first bite after several hours. Yes, many are simply guilty of mindless snacking, but it is impossible to distinguish between those that have barely eaten the whole day and those that have just downed a quarter pounder from McDonald’s. Obviously, it is far from ideal to eat in the stressful, rushed environment of public transport. However, looking at the alternative, isn’t it still better than going hungry and ending the day with a binge on fast food, because the body has been denied it’s necessary fuel? Unfortunately, our increasingly busy way of life allows us very little time to take care of ourselves and perform any mindfulness, whether that be eating or socializing. While this might also be one of the causes behind the growing obesity rates, it is something we need to take into account when making health suggestions. Indeed, it seems much more important to advertise healthier choices and make them more accessible and affordable, rather than taking away the (for some people) essential time of commuting to grab something to fuel us for the day. 

Not only could the ban be potentially detrimental for some individuals, but its effectivity is also highly questionable. Although commuting can take up a significant amount of time for many, it is still not enough for it to be too difficult for people to find alternative times for their snacking. You can simply down that can of Pepsi before you get on the Tube, and eat that Mars Bar once you get off and are walking to your final destination. This would be an even more hurried and unhealthy way of eating, whilst the calorie consumption remains the same, only shifting to slightly different times. Furthermore, even if that extra time cannot be found through the day, what stops people from coming home and binge-eating even harder, especially if they have gone hungry for a longer time since their afternoon snack on the bus has been taken away?

One should also consider whether this proposal will not make people want to snack even more. It is no secret that the forbidden fruit tastes best, and if commuters are highly conscious of the fact that even if they wanted to, they cannot have any food, it could cause them to subconsciously think of food more than they otherwise would. We all know that once you start thinking about something it is very difficult to stop, and you might end up stopping at the first corner shop to buy some chocolate when you get off that train.  

So far, I have focused mainly on commuters, but there are other groups that need to be considered as well. Namely, we should look at how the ban affects children, especially younger ones. While the proposed ban would exclude breastfeeding, it could still make the lives of mothers more difficult. Toddlers can be a very fussy age group; most of us have probably witnessed what it is like when they decide to throw a tantrum. A child does not understand bans, it understands that it is hungry. By no means am I suggesting this would be a health-endangering issue for small children, however, it might make it more difficult for parents to take their kids on public transport if they are in constant fear their child will break down crying over not getting their food. This would add yet another thing to the list of what they have to think of when taking their children out, and might even discourage them from using public transport, which given the climate crisis looming over us is a significant problem. 

Speaking of the disincentive to take the bus or the tube, I believe this could apply to more people than just parents. While regular commuters will remain loyal to public transport, those that use public transport only occasionally might consider different routes that do not require them to schedule their snacks. Similarly, a group you can often find munching down on power bars or fruits are tourists in between sightseeing, and this ban could discourage them from using public transport. In general, the ban could be a discouragement for people taking public transport. Obviously this would be a huge shame as public transport use is a great way to be a little greener in everyday life.

There is no doubt that something needs to be done about individuals excessive calorie intake, however, why would banning snacking on public transport do anything to solve this issue?  It seems much easier to place restrictions directly on the food items – taxing high-calorie snacks and beverages or tightening ingredient list guidelines – rather than restricting its consumption and trying to change people’s habits. Indeed, the latter is arguably the most difficult to change and requires more nuance than the proposed ‘cold turkey’ approach.

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body - if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.