Nationwide school junk food changes. Your opinion?

[Thrill]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

But the school doesn't pay for the kids medical bills

They should accept social responsibility, at some level. You figure, 12 years of public schooling at roughly 160 full school days a year. That's nearly 2,000 meals. The difference between junk and healthy foods will add up tremendously over that period. The school has a choice between making a positive impact on society (i.e. decrease dependence on a bloated medical industry in a country that spends a greater fraction of its economy on medicine than pretty much anybody else) or making a negative impact (i.e. feed into the health crisis which causes productivity-killing disease).

The school is a public institution and should always act in the best interest of the society which it serves. If the school acts in any other way, you've got corruption infiltrating what I believe is the very heart and soul of society. The task of education is more than analyzing books and taking derivatives; a school is built to set its students up for future success. Pink slime with a side of deep fried bread is not setting anyone up for success.

 

[allison]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

But the school doesn't pay for the kids medical bills

They should accept social responsibility, at some level. You figure, 12 years of public schooling at roughly 160 full school days a year. That's nearly 2,000 meals. The difference between junk and healthy foods will add up tremendously over that period. The school has a choice between making a positive impact on society (i.e. decrease dependence on a bloated medical industry in a country that spends a greater fraction of its economy on medicine than pretty much anybody else) or make a negative impact (i.e. feed into the health crisis which causes productivity-killing disease).



The school is a public institution and should always act in the best interest of the society which it serves. If the school acts in any other way, you've got corruption infiltrating what I believe is the very heart and soul of society. The task of education is more than analyzing books and taking derivatives; a school is built to set its students up for future success. Pink slime with a side of deep fried bread is not setting anyone up for success.

That's not the way the world works. It's not that simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

But the school doesn't pay for the kids medical bills

They should accept social responsibility, at some level. You figure, 12 years of public schooling at roughly 160 full school days a year. That's nearly 2,000 meals. The difference between junk and healthy foods will add up tremendously over that period. The school has a choice between making a positive impact on society (i.e. decrease dependence on a bloated medical industry in a country that spends a greater fraction of its economy on medicine than pretty much anybody else) or making a negative impact (i.e. feed into the health crisis which causes productivity-killing disease).



The school is a public institution and should always act in the best interest of the society which it serves. If the school acts in any other way, you've got corruption infiltrating what I believe is the very heart and soul of society. The task of education is more than analyzing books and taking derivatives; a school is built to set its students up for future success. Pink slime with a side of deep fried bread is not setting anyone up for success.

That's not the way the world works. It's not that simple.

Again, this is a public institution which should in no way be involved in the sale of unhealthy foods. If an individual parent chooses to send their kid to school with junk food, or gives it to them at home, then that's their perogative/problem. But the school should have some integrity and sell only healthy food options.

It is that simple. I understand that schools alone cannot resolve a health crisis. But there's little to debate in that schools should not contribute to one.

 

[allison]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

But the school doesn't pay for the kids medical bills

They should accept social responsibility, at some level. You figure, 12 years of public schooling at roughly 160 full school days a year. That's nearly 2,000 meals. The difference between junk and healthy foods will add up tremendously over that period. The school has a choice between making a positive impact on society (i.e. decrease dependence on a bloated medical industry in a country that spends a greater fraction of its economy on medicine than pretty much anybody else) or making a negative impact (i.e. feed into the health crisis which causes productivity-killing disease).



The school is a public institution and should always act in the best interest of the society which it serves. If the school acts in any other way, you've got corruption infiltrating what I believe is the very heart and soul of society. The task of education is more than analyzing books and taking derivatives; a school is built to set its students up for future success. Pink slime with a side of deep fried bread is not setting anyone up for success.

That's not the way the world works. It's not that simple.

Again, this is a public institution which should in no way be involved in the sale of unhealthy foods. If an individual parent chooses to send their kid to school with junk food, or gives it to them at home, then that's their perogative/problem. But the school should have some integrity and sell only healthy food options.

It is that simple. I understand that schools alone cannot resolve a health crisis. But there's little to debate in that schools should not contribute to one.

What I'm saying is, sure it would be nice and dandy if schools stopped selling unhealthy lunches, but it's never going to go away completely. I myself hate school lunches and always bring a lunch from home. But schools are pretty much going to always serve disgusting unhealthy stuff because it's their cheapest option, and frankly, they couldn't care less about the health of individual children. Heck, there was one school district that refused to feed kids that were in the negatives in terms of their lunch account balance. Of course they should care, but they don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whispered]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

But the school doesn't pay for the kids medical bills

They should accept social responsibility, at some level. You figure, 12 years of public schooling at roughly 160 full school days a year. That's nearly 2,000 meals. The difference between junk and healthy foods will add up tremendously over that period. The school has a choice between making a positive impact on society (i.e. decrease dependence on a bloated medical industry in a country that spends a greater fraction of its economy on medicine than pretty much anybody else) or making a negative impact (i.e. feed into the health crisis which causes productivity-killing disease).



The school is a public institution and should always act in the best interest of the society which it serves. If the school acts in any other way, you've got corruption infiltrating what I believe is the very heart and soul of society. The task of education is more than analyzing books and taking derivatives; a school is built to set its students up for future success. Pink slime with a side of deep fried bread is not setting anyone up for success.

That's not the way the world works. It's not that simple.

Again, this is a public institution which should in no way be involved in the sale of unhealthy foods. If an individual parent chooses to send their kid to school with junk food, or gives it to them at home, then that's their perogative/problem. But the school should have some integrity and sell only healthy food options.

It is that simple. I understand that schools alone cannot resolve a health crisis. But there's little to debate in that schools should not contribute to one.

Schools should have the integrity to teach the kids what is healthy, unhealthy, etc. and how to moderate their intake of unhealthy foods - leading by example (offer 90% healthy, 10% unhealthy, or make unhealthy more expensive). Only feeding them healthy foods just makes them go home and eat junk food - because their "healthy" food is neither nutritious, filling, or has enough calories to satiate someone's need for energy.

 

[Thrill]

Schools should have the integrity to teach the kids what is healthy, unhealthy, etc. and how to moderate their intake of unhealthy foods - leading by example (offer 90% healthy, 10% unhealthy, or make unhealthy more expensive). Only feeding them healthy foods just makes them go home and eat junk food - because their "healthy" food is neither nutritious, filling, or has enough calories to satiate someone's need for energy.

This policy has an issue in its execution, not in its principle. Schools should sell only healthy foods. (I think we agree on that much.) The issue is that this policy defines "healthy" incorrectly. Whole milk is healthy. Whole grains are overrated.

 

[Whispered]

Schools should have the integrity to teach the kids what is healthy, unhealthy, etc. and how to moderate their intake of unhealthy foods - leading by example (offer 90% healthy, 10% unhealthy, or make unhealthy more expensive). Only feeding them healthy foods just makes them go home and eat junk food - because their "healthy" food is neither nutritious, filling, or has enough calories to satiate someone's need for energy.

This policy has an issue in its execution, not in its principle. Schools should sell only healthy foods. (I think we agree on that much.) The issue is that this policy defines "healthy" incorrectly. Whole milk is healthy. Whole grains are overrated.

No, we don't agree that schools should only sell healthy food - unless you're willing to accept that 95+% of foods are healthy in some way and in some quantity. Chocolate may not be healthy if your entire meal is made of chocolate - but in small quantities it certainly has health benefits. Same with caffeine. Same with sugars of various sources/types.

Schools are there to teach - not command, not force, not deny options. As with teaching other subjects, they should teach how to moderate your intake to a healthy diet - starting in elementary school (we used Go, Slow, and Whoa! foods as the model, and were taught that our plate should be mostly Go foods, Slow foods once or twice a week, and Whoa foods as a treat very infrequently). The school shouldn't be dictating what is/isn't healthy by virtue of only carrying certain foods - as you say, they will never be perfect at that. They should teach the children how to recognize healthy foods (not 1000 calories in one small square of food, high in vitamin content, not tons of fat calories, trans fats bad, etc), and then provide them with options for lunch.

Maybe the kid had a test first period that they thought they aced and they'd love to treat themselves to an ice cream sandwich for dessert at lunch that day. Maybe they want a nice greasy slice of pizza one day. They should be allowed to choose those items. Freedom of choice, but educate on the right choices.

 

[Captain-Heather]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

 

[allison]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

Yeah, but what kind of food Americans eat has really no pertinence to kids starving in Africa. It's called fallacy of relative privation, and it's not an effective strategy in debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kalyee]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

Yeah, but what kind of food Americans eat has really no pertinence to kids starving in Africa. It's called fallacy of relative privation, and it's not an effective strategy in debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you both, in a way, I suppose.
I definitely feel for other countries and their struggles, as well as those struggling closer to home - believe me, I've had my fair share of hungry nights when times get tough - and it's incredible what we have compared to some. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care/worry/work to implement better standards in our own country with our resources. Saying "we can't worry about what we eat here because some people have nothing" - not directly quoting you, just an example - would be a bit counterproductive. Yeah, there are a lot worse problems out there than school lunches, but that doesn't mean you knock the less extreme issue off just because it isn't as worrisome as the extreme. You work to fix both in due time.

 

[Captain-Heather]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

Yeah, but what kind of food Americans eat has really no pertinence to kids starving in Africa. It's called fallacy of relative privation, and it's not an effective strategy in debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand that. I was just making a point about how lucky we are in the US to be able to have arguments like this. Perhaps when people take that into consideration, they might enjoy their processed pizza and limp salad a little more.

 

[allison]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

Yeah, but what kind of food Americans eat has really no pertinence to kids starving in Africa. It's called fallacy of relative privation, and it's not an effective strategy in debates.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand that. I was just making a point about how lucky we are in the US to be able to have arguments like this. Perhaps when people take that into consideration, they might enjoy their processed pizza and limp salad a little more.

I really doubt people are going to enjoy bad food even a little bit. It's like saying to enjoy your broken wrist more because someone else might have both of their legs broken, at least that's how I view that argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Question]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

Yeah, but what kind of food Americans eat has really no pertinence to kids starving in Africa. It's called fallacy of relative privation, and it's not an effective strategy in debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand that. I was just making a point about how lucky we are in the US to be able to have arguments like this. Perhaps when people take that into consideration, they might enjoy their processed pizza and limp salad a little more.

the thought of someone else starving in the world doesn't make the food taste any better sorry

 

[Chicknoodle]

What's sad is how in America we can even argue about what kind of food our kids are getting. I feel sorry for the people in the world who would just like FOOD. Period.

Yeah, but what kind of food Americans eat has really no pertinence to kids starving in Africa. It's called fallacy of relative privation, and it's not an effective strategy in debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand that. I was just making a point about how lucky we are in the US to be able to have arguments like this. Perhaps when people take that into consideration, they might enjoy their processed pizza and limp salad a little more.

the thought of someone else starving in the world doesn't make the food taste any better sorry

same