"Mummy, we've got to get an endowment mortgage," said Henry, the six-year-old son of a friend of mine. "Errrr, why Henry?" asked my friend, understandably perplexed. "Because it says so on the telly," said Henry.

One of the reasons that makes young children, like Henry, so sweet is they're not old enough to be sceptical, and that also applies to junk food ads or dad's jokes. So most food manufacturers accepted some time ago not to promote to this age group.

When Ofcom made its surprise decision to extend the 'junk food' ad ban to children under 16, however, it did so under the same pretext: that children of all ages needed 'protecting'. Yet evidence from our research (see p34) is that 11 to 15-year-olds are far more savvy than the government gives them credit. They know the food they ought to eat, and the food they ought not. And over 90% are now eating more healthily. So lots for Caroline Flint to crow about as she goes off on her sugar-free-Easter-egg recess.

Where she should be concerned is over the levels of exercise that children take. The biggest problem children face - apart from a residual hatred of vegetables and ongoing love affair with chips - is that only 16% of 11 to 15-year-olds are doing the seven hours of weekly exercise recommended by the DoH.

And here's another missing cog in the government's approach to obesity: cost. It's widely quoted that for the first time in history, the poor are now fatter than the rich. But according to Professor Adam Drewnowski at the Center for Public Health Nutrition in Seattle, using the FSA's Nutrient Profiling Model, 'healthy' foods cost four times more than 'junk' foods. In the week that childhood poverty levels worsened, that must surely give rocket-munching socialists food for thought.