A national health authority released the following public statement: 'Childhood obesity has reached alarming proportions. In our country, 28% of children ag...

(a) One fact and one opinion [2]

Fact [1]: "28% of children aged 6 to 12 are now classified as overweight or obese." This is a measurable statistic derived from health data that can be independently verified.

Opinion [1]: "Schools must play a central role in reversing this trend." This is a judgement about what should happen, reflecting the health authority's view of where responsibility lies. Others might argue that the food industry, parents, or urban planners should take the lead instead.

(b) Two reasons why focusing only on schools might not be enough [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. Limited time influence: Children spend more waking hours outside school than inside it. Dietary habits at home, at social gatherings, in restaurants, and through snacking are shaped by the wider food environment, which school policies cannot control [1+1].
2. Food industry advertising: The food industry spends billions on advertising unhealthy products directly to children through television, online platforms, social media, and product packaging. These powerful commercial influences operate far beyond the school gates and cannot be counteracted by school-based measures alone [1+1].
3. Socioeconomic barriers: Some families cannot afford healthier food options due to low income, limited access to fresh produce, or time constraints that make processed convenience food the practical choice. School interventions do not address these root economic causes [1+1].
4. Sedentary lifestyles beyond school: Physical activity sessions during school hours may be insufficient if children are sedentary for the rest of the day due to excessive screen time, lack of safe outdoor play spaces, or parental restrictions on outdoor activity [1+1].

(c) Two arguments supporting government regulation of the food industry [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. Disproportionate industry influence: The food industry has far greater resources and influence over what children eat than any individual family. Regulation is needed to create a level playing field where healthy choices are not overwhelmed by marketing for unhealthy products [1+1].
2. Population-wide equity: Mandatory measures such as sugar taxes, advertising restrictions, or reformulation requirements affect the entire population simultaneously and are more equitable than relying on each family to make optimal choices independently, which disadvantages those with less knowledge, time, or money [1+1].
3. Structural barriers: Some parents lack the nutritional knowledge, time, or financial means to consistently provide balanced meals. Placing responsibility on families ignores these structural barriers and effectively blames individuals for systemic problems [1+1].
4. Industry self-regulation failure: Industries regulate themselves poorly because profit incentives conflict with public health goals. Companies that voluntarily reduce sugar or advertising place themselves at a competitive disadvantage, so meaningful change requires government-imposed standards that apply equally to all [1+1].

(d) How a child affected by obesity might view this debate differently [2]

A child experiencing obesity might feel embarrassed, anxious, or singled out by public health campaigns, school weighing programmes, or classroom discussions about healthy eating [1]. They may view the debate not as an abstract policy question but as something deeply personal, and would want to be treated with compassion and sensitivity rather than becoming the subject of adult arguments about blame and responsibility [1].