The use of photographs in the article by Sarah Cassidy shows the food is ‘cheap’ and processed with three schools boys drinking sugary fizzy drinks which has the effect of these innocent young children having no choice but to eat unhealthy food. This photo corresponds to the Daily Mail as the image contains an innocent child eating the common fatty chips to enforce the point of the title. Again, these two articles contrast with the Guardian of a photograph of children eating a variety of what looks like nutritious acceptable foods. It is a mutual image to show that there are ways of improvement – this agrees with the message the title conveys as well.
The sort of opinion we are given by the Daily Mail is that the ‘low-quality processed food’ given to the children is horrific and not only that is it affecting their appearance as more and more children are becoming obese but there is a ‘health’ issue involved also. It bluntly relates to the figures that are spent on children’s food and criminals’ as hell: ‘paints a damning picture of ‘muck off a truck’. This creates strong imagery to anger and rhyming to get the point across so it sticks. The Independent is conveying the same sort of opinion that like the Daily Mail the food given is ‘dematerialised fish, mechanically recovered meat and poor-quality produce’. It also mentions the same point that it is related to children’s obesity increase and that ‘good eating habits reduce disease in later life’. Again this means that the food given affects health and weight just like the Daily Mail pointed out. The aim of the information given is to evoke great concern in people and arouses this problem to show how desperate solutions are needed. However, the Guardian gives the opinion that it is a problem but there are ways to overcome it giving an example of schools who have done so by changing and ‘distributing menus’ where children have got involved by calculating costs in maths lessons therefore there is a contrast with this article because it puts across a positive view whereas the other two portray the negative sides of the situation.
The Daily Mail expresses very emotive language ‘muck off a truck’ to cause anxiety for the welfare of children this like the Independent article relates to the graphic imagery of pig’s food as well as some factual information such as the cost figures of children ‘s lunch compared to prisoners’ food. The Independent is similar to the Daily Mail as it uses emotive language to suggest the same emotion in readers, for example ‘poor pupils’ – this is emotive as it evoke sympathy for children as well as using alliteration to emphasise this. The Independent however is a lot more factual than the Daily Mail, it not only mentions cost figures of both prison and children’s food but mentions other shocking information like the problem of obesity related illnesses costs the ‘NHS £2 billion a year’ this astonishes the reader and shows just how bad the circumstances are. The Guardian is mostly factual as it educates the reader on how menus can be altered n changed to resolve the problem. It not only educates readers about the problem but gives hope that there are things that can change, e.g. ‘organic sponge and custard pudding’. This is reassurance to readers as they give credit to themselves by professional organisations: ‘Food For Life Project’.
Vivianne Bull’s point is important because she states that better quality food will cost parents more money and in order for the children to start eating healthy parents have got to set an example as many parents eat low quality or fast food themselves. This shows when she says: ‘Unless we as adults change, how can we force children to change?’ She is bringing up the fact that it is not just schools feeding children bad food but it is everyone eating bad food bringing in a wider perspective.
All three articles are similar in the audience they are aiming to write to which is adults especially parent of a primary age as these would be the people most concerned for their own children and would have more of an impact seeing innocent children eating such unhealthy food.
