Leading doctors today weigh in on the debate over the government’s role in promoting public health by demanding that ministers impose “fat taxes” on unhealthy food and introduce cigarette-style warnings to children about the dangers of a poor diet.

The demands follow comments made last week by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, who insisted the government could not force people to make healthy choices and promised to free businesses from public health regulations.

But senior medical figures want to stop fast-food outlets opening near schools, restrict advertising of products high in fat, salt or sugar, and limit sponsorship of sports events by fast-food producers such as McDonald’s.

They argue that government action is necessary to curb Britain’s addiction to unhealthy food and help halt spiraling rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said that the consumption of unhealthy food should be seen to be just as damaging as smoking or excessive drinking.

“Thirty years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have imagined a ban on smoking in the workplace or in pubs, and yet that is what we have now. Are we willing to be just as courageous in respect of obesity? I would suggest that we should be,” said the leader of the UK’s children’s doctors.

Lansley has alarmed health campaigners by suggesting he wants industry rather than government to take the lead. He said that manufacturers of crisps and candies could play a central role in the Chang4Life campaign, the centrepiece of government efforts to boost healthy eating and fitness. He has also criticised the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s high-profile attempt to improve school lunches in England as an example of how “lecturing” people was not the best way to change their behaviour.

Stephenson suggested potential restrictions could include banning TV advertisements for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before 9 pm and limiting them on billboards or in cinemas. “If we were really bold, we might even begin to think of high-calorie fast food in the same way as cigarettes—by setting strict limits on advertising, product placement and sponsorship of sport events,” he said.

Such a move could affect firms such as McDonald’s, which sponsors the youth coaching scheme run by the Football Association. Fast-food chains should also stop offering “inducements” such as toys, cute animals and mobile phone credit to lure young customers, Stephenson said.

Professor Dinesh Bhugra, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: “If children are taught about the impact that food has on their growth, and that some things can harm, at least information is available up front.”

He also urged councils to impose “fast-food-free zones” around schools and hospitals—areas within which takeaways cannot open.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “We need to create a new vision for public health where all of society works together to get healthy and live longer. This includes creating a new ‘responsibility deal’ with business, built on social responsibility, not state regulation. Later this year, we will publish a white paper setting out exactly how we will achieve this.”

The food industry will be alarmed that such senior doctors back such radical moves, especially the call to use some of the tough tactics that have been deployed against smoking over the last decade.

Emerging in the late Sixties and reaching a peak in the Seventies, Land Art was one of a range of new forms, including Body Art, Performance Art, Action Art and Installation Art, which pushed art beyond the traditional confines of the studio and gallery. Rather than portraying landscape, land artists used the physical substance of the land itself as their medium.

The British land art, typified by Richard Long’s piece, was not only more domestically scaled, but a lot quirkier than its American counterpart. Indeed, while you might assume that an exhibition of Land Art would consist only of records of works rather than the works themselves, Long’s photograph of his work is the work. Since his “action” is in the past the photograph is its sole embodiment.

That might seem rather an obscure point, but it sets the tone for an exhibition that contains a lot of black-and-white photographs and relatively few natural objects.

Long is Britain’s best-known Land Artist and his Stone Circle, a perfect ring of purplish rocks from Portishead beach laid out on the gallery floor, represents the elegant, rarefied side of the form. The Boyle Family, on the other hand, stand for its dirty, urban aspect. Comprising artists Mark Boyle and Joan Hills and their children, they recreated random sections of the British landscape on gallery walls. Their Olaf Street Study, a square of brick-strewn waste ground, is one of the few works here to embrace the commonplaceness that characterizes most of our experience of the landscape most of the time.

Parks feature, particularly in the earlier works, such as John Hilliard’s very funny Across the Park, in which a long-haired stroller is variously smiled at by a pretty girl and unwittingly assaulted in a sequence of images that turn out to be different parts of the same photograph.

Generally however British land artists preferred to get away from towns, gravitating towards landscapes that are traditionally considered beautiful such as the Lake District or the Wiltshire Downs. While it probably wasn’t apparent at the time, much of this work is permeated by a spirit of romantic escapism that the likes of Wordsworth would have readily understood. Derek Jarman’s yellow-tinted film Towards Avebury, a collection of long, mostly still shots of the Wiltshire landscape, evokes a tradition of English landscape painting stretching from Samuel Palmer to Paul Nash.

In the case of Hamish Fulton, you can’t help feeling that the Scottish artist has simply found a way of making his love of walking pay. A typical work, such as Seven Days, consists of a single beautiful black-and-white photograph taken on an epic walk, with the mileage and number of days taken listed beneath.

British Land Art as shown in this well selected, but relatively modestly scaled exhibition wasn’t about imposing on the landscape, more a kind of landscape-orientated light conceptual art created passing through. It had its origins in the great outdoors, but the results were as gallery-bound as the paintings of Turner and Constable.

How seriously should parents take kids’ opinions when searching for a home?

In choosing a new home, Camille McClain’s kids have a single demand: a backyard.

McClain’s little ones aren’t the only kids who have an opinion when it comes to housing, and in many cases youngsters’ views weigh heavily on parents’ real estate decisions, according to a 2018 Harris Poll survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults.

While more families buck an older-generation proclivity to leave kids in the dark about real estate decisions, realty agents and psychologists have mixed views about the financial, personal and long-term effects kids’ opinions may have.

The idea of involving children in a big decision is a great idea because it can help them feel a sense of control and ownership in what can be an overwhelming process, said Ryan Hooper, clinical psychologist in Chicago.

“Children may face serious difficulties in coping with significant moves, especially if it removes them from their current school or support system,” he said.

Greg Jaroszewski, a real estate broker with Gagliardo Realty Associates, said he’s not convinced that kids should be involved in selecting a home—but their opinions should be considered in regards to proximity to friends and social activities, if possible.

Younger children should feel like they’re choosing their home—without actually getting a choice in the matter, said Adam Bailey, real estate attorney based in New York.

Asking them questions about what they like about the backyard of a potential home will make them feel like they’re being included in the decision-making process, Bailey said.

Many of the aspects of homebuying aren’t a consideration for children, said Tracey Hampson, a real estate agent based in Santa Clarita, Calif. And placing too much emphasis on their opinions can ruin a fantastic home purchase.

“Speaking with your children before you make a real estate decision is wise, but I wouldn’t base the purchasing decision solely on their opinions.” Hampson said.

The other issue is that many children—especially older ones—may base their real state knowledge on HGTV shows, said Aaron Norris of The Norris Group in Riverside, Calif.

“They love Chip and Joanna Gaines just as much as the rest of us,” he said. “HGTV has seriously changed how people view real estate. It’s not shelter, it’s a lifestyle. With that mindset change come some serious money consequences.”

Kids tend to get stuck in the features and the immediate benefits to them personally, Norris said.

Parents need to remind their children that their needs and desires may change over time, said Julie Gurner, a real estate analyst with FitSmallBusiness.com.

“Their opinions can change tomorrow,” Gurner said. “Harsh as it may be to say, that decision should likely not be made contingent on a child’s opinions, but rather made for them with great consideration into what home can meet their needs best—and give them an opportunity to customize it a bit and make it their own.”

This advice is more relevant now than ever before, even as more parents want to embrace the ideas of their children, despite the current housing crunch.