Don't be fooled

WinterBorn said:
Sometimes the gov't shouldnot interfere. You are worried about the uproar that would be created by banning items that kids MIGHT bring to lunch. But you have no problem in telling parents that they have no say in what their kids eat.

Its not as if you have to search lockers. We re talking about LUNCHES. They will take them out and eat them in the lunchroom. Make a list of items the kids are not allowed to bring. Ban sodas with sugar, candy, or whatever.
Click to expand...

It's about more than junk food. The idea is a balanced meal. There is nothing wrong with a peanut butter sandwich but if the rest of the day's diet, breakfast and dinner, are composed of junk food then a peanut butter sandwich is not sufficient for lunch.
 
From: http://ultimatefoodie.com/cafeteria-food-fight/

"My children don’t eat school cafeteria food, mainly because they wouldn’t choose to eat it at all. This week, their school menu touts the following unhealthful things: breaded chicken (fried in oil of course), cookies, cheeseburger and potato smiles (again with the oil!), fruit cup (lots of sugar in that!), brownies, tamale pocket, cheese its, cheese pizza and chips. Given their own choice, my kids choose things like turkey sandwiches, bananas, apples, peanut butter sandwiches, homemade soups and juice. As a parent, these are choices that I reinforce. It’s not the purview of the school to decide what my child eats. It is their job to teach them math, science, reading, critical thinking, etc. I certainly would take it as an affront if I was told that I could no longer send whole wheat turkey sandwiches, bananas, crackers and juice to school with my children because the school (and government) knew better what to feed them."

From: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...120110410_1_lunch-food-provider-public-school

"At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad."




If the concern was actually about the children's health, parents who pack low fat nutritious lunches for their kids would be praised. Funny how that is not happening.


Another thing I find amusing is that there is such a push to make parents spend $2.25 per day/per child on lunches. Perhaps this is the root of the problem more than a faux concern for children's health.
 
apple0154 said:
It's about more than junk food. The idea is a balanced meal. There is nothing wrong with a peanut butter sandwich but if the rest of the day's diet, breakfast and dinner, are composed of junk food then a peanut butter sandwich is not sufficient for lunch.
Click to expand...

And the parents who want to send a turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple?? You won't allow them? You are going to use the power of the gov't to stop them from sending this lunch and demanding that they have their kids eat the tuna surprise and canned corn the lunchroom serves?
 
apple0154 said:
How could a health policy be implemented if some children were permitted to bring their lunch? Every lunch would have to be checked. Imagine the uproar that would happen if a certain food was disqualified. And whose to say the child doesn't prefer the piece of cake for lunch instead of dessert after dinner?

Sometimes a general policy has to be put in place in order for it to function.
Click to expand...
Can you say fascism ?....

apple0154 said:
Reminds me of what a friend of mine used to do when his children wouldn't eat their supper.

No problem. Put it in the fridge and when you're hungry that's the next thing you have to eat. So, if the child goes to bed hungry, refusing to eat a certain type of food, that's the breakfast menu.

I liked that idea.
Click to expand...

Rather than starve the child into submission, why not just beat the shit out of him or her....or maybe lit cigars to the fingertips....torture is torture, starvation is just a slow version.

Ya....vee aveee ways to make you eat...ya ?
 
tom prendergast said:
Glad to be of service, are able to post anything that doesn't include the word pinhead? It is as regular as Taichiliberal referring to the chronology of posts and just as tiresome.
Click to expand...

I know...even I'm getting tired of the label....but it just fits so damn well in describing most of you....

Pinhead; A very dull or stupid person according to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (see my point?)
 
WinterBorn said:
And the parents who want to send a turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple?? You won't allow them? You are going to use the power of the gov't to stop them from sending this lunch and demanding that they have their kids eat the tuna surprise and canned corn the lunchroom serves?
Click to expand...

It would be impractical to check individual lunches. While there may be parents who will send a more nutritious lunch the ones served are not detrimental to the child. And let's not forget it's about implementing a balanced program. We don't know what the child is eating at home. A turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple are great but are there any dairy products for calcium?

The lunch program varies the food throughout the week so the child gets balanced nutrition. That's really the goal.



The program has to be balanced.
 
bravo said:
Can you say fascism ?....

Rather than starve the child into submission, why not just beat the shit out of him or her....or maybe lit cigars to the fingertips....torture is torture, starvation is just a slow version.

Ya....vee aveee ways to make you eat...ya ?
Click to expand...

Bravo. Bravo. No one is starving the child. If a child wanted to eat chocolate bars all day would that be OK with you?

And you should deal with your fascination with "fascism". Was there some memorable moment when you first heard that word?
 
apple0154 said:
It would be impractical to check individual lunches. While there may be parents who will send a more nutritious lunch the ones served are not detrimental to the child. And let's not forget it's about implementing a balanced program. We don't know what the child is eating at home. A turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple are great but are there any dairy products for calcium?

The lunch program varies the food throughout the week so the child gets balanced nutrition. That's really the goal.



The program has to be balanced.
Click to expand...

No, it is not about the nutrition. It is about the state overstepping their bounds and taking away the parent's rights to choose what their children eat.

"We don't know what the child is eating at home. A turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple are great but are there any dairy products for calcium?"

No, we don't know what the child is eating at home. Would you liketo place a monitor there to watch the family meals? Wouldn't that be a logical extension of this plan?

What about the kids who do not likethe cottage cheese offered as the calcium in the school lunch? You are making it so they will absolutely not have calcium. (btw, having milk at lunch would take care of that)
 
apple0154 said:
Bravo. Bravo. No one is starving the child. If a child wanted to eat chocolate bars all day would that be OK with you?

And you should deal with your fascination with "fascism". Was there some memorable moment when you first heard that word?
Click to expand...

The entire premise of this ruling is that the gov't must take over raising the child for the child's own good.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, it is not about the nutrition. It is about the state overstepping their bounds and taking away the parent's rights to choose what their children eat.

"We don't know what the child is eating at home. A turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple are great but are there any dairy products for calcium?"

No, we don't know what the child is eating at home. Would you liketo place a monitor there to watch the family meals? Wouldn't that be a logical extension of this plan?

What about the kids who do not likethe cottage cheese offered as the calcium in the school lunch? You are making it so they will absolutely not have calcium. (btw, having milk at lunch would take care of that)
Click to expand...

If parents cannot or will not act responsibly towards their children (and OUR future generations) then the government has every right for the sake of the wider society to insist on improvements to diet or lifestyle or both. Parents are temporary guardians of the nations future.
Children brought up in dangerous environments have always been the concern of society (through government). It surprises me that, in a country so beset by morbid obesity, anyone should defend a parents right to abuse their children.
It would, I guess, simply be another poke at ‘the nigger in the whitehouse’ and if not then it is an arrogance that has been bred into the worst sections of society (American AND British) which says: ‘No one has the right to tell ME what to do.’ Well, if that’s the way you think let me tell you that the society in which you live and from whom you benefit has EVERY right to tell you to act responsibly.
Get on with it.
 
apple0154 said:
It would be impractical to check individual lunches. While there may be parents who will send a more nutritious lunch the ones served are not detrimental to the child. And let's not forget it's about implementing a balanced program. We don't know what the child is eating at home. A turkey sandwich on wholewheat bread, carrot sticks, and an apple are great but are there any dairy products for calcium?

The lunch program varies the food throughout the week so the child gets balanced nutrition. That's really the goal.


The program has to be balanced.
Click to expand...

The point is not about tax funded school lunches being made up of a balanced diet- IT'S ABOUT A SCHOOL PLAYING NAZI over what a parent decides to send for lunch. Trust me when I tell you that it is the poor fat kids or poor skinny rotten toothed ones who eat the school's FREE tasteless usually gross lunch- Kids who bring a lunch tend to have a better more balanced and definitely edible diet!
 
Ice Dancer said:
The point is not about tax funded school lunches being made up of a balanced diet- IT'S ABOUT A SCHOOL PLAYING NAZI over what a parent decides to send for lunch. Trust me when I tell you that it is the poor fat kids or poor skinny rotten toothed ones who eat the school's FREE tasteless usually gross lunch- Kids who bring a lunch tend to have a better more balanced and definitely edible diet!
Click to expand...

So you believe in putting your own comfort and well being above that of your country.

Hands up anyone who is surprised.
 
Lowaicue said:
If parents cannot or will not act responsibly towards their children (and OUR future generations) then the government has every right for the sake of the wider society to insist on improvements to diet or lifestyle or both. Parents are temporary guardians of the nations future.
Children brought up in dangerous environments have always been the concern of society (through government). It surprises me that, in a country so beset by morbid obesity, anyone should defend a parents right to abuse their children.
It would, I guess, simply be another poke at ‘the nigger in the whitehouse’ and if not then it is an arrogance that has been bred into the worst sections of society (American AND British) which says: ‘No one has the right to tell ME what to do.’ Well, if that’s the way you think let me tell you that the society in which you live and from whom you benefit has EVERY right to tell you to act responsibly.
Get on with it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so WHEN the parents act irresponsibly, use the agencies already in place to take care of the situation. This ruling removes the parental authority of the parents who do act responsibly.
 
WinterBorn said:
Ok, so WHEN the parents act irresponsibly, use the agencies already in place to take care of the situation. This ruling removes the parental authority of the parents who do act responsibly.
Click to expand...

Human nature being what it is laws tend to be made for recalcitrants not for the conformers. If you, as a good citizen can persuade those about you who cannot behave responsibly to do so, then no one need impose anything. So, if you think your freedoms are being infringed do something about it. Get involved in your neighbourhood, keep an eye on those less fortunate or less smart than yourself.
OK. So that is impractical… Better get help from the authorities!
 
Lowaicue said:
Human nature being what it is laws tend to be made for recalcitrants not for the conformers. If you, as a good citizen can persuade those about you who cannot behave responsibly to do so, then no one need impose anything. So, if you think your freedoms are being infringed do something about it. Get involved in your neighbourhood, keep an eye on those less fortunate or less smart than yourself.
OK. So that is impractical… Better get help from the authorities!
Click to expand...

Not impractical at all. When my children were in public school I was VERY active in their education. I was at the school an average of 2 days a week for most of the year. Our PTA was at roughly 225% of the student population. We (the PTA) were active in supporting the needs of both the students and the school.

But even if the school does not have such an active group of parents, it does not give them the right usurp the parent's rights to determine what their children eat. If the parents abuse or neglect the children, take steps. But to do so when they have not harmed their children is wrong.
 
WinterBorn said:
Not impractical at all. When my children were in public school I was VERY active in their education. I was at the school an average of 2 days a week for most of the year. Our PTA was at roughly 225% of the student population. We (the PTA) were active in supporting the needs of both the students and the school.

But even if the school does not have such an active group of parents, it does not give them the right usurp the parent's rights to determine what their children eat. If the parents abuse or neglect the children, take steps. But to do so when they have not harmed their children is wrong.
Click to expand...

Approximately one in three American youngsters are obese.; They will consume greater resources than those who are not, in terms of medication, hospital costs, work related illnesses, etc. This means that statistically an obese child is likely to grow to adulthood and be less of an advantage to society than a non obese child. That means that an employer who will be obliged to pay him according to societies requirements will lose production and therefore money. The worker (still obese) will earn less, pay less in taxation and be a burden, to a greater or lesser extent, upon the society of which you are part.
Will you still say that a parent has the right to put YOU at a disadvantage because he or she refuses to govern the diet and general well being of his child?
Don’t you think you should have a say? Well, actually no, but your government as the guardian of society and the provider of resources (that you pay for) has every right to be concerned. After all, you vote them in, they work for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top