Obesity regulations show positive results

#77
#77
PKT_VOL said:
Ought to be up the local school board.

If parents dissent, they can make their opinion be known to the school board or pack their child's lunch.
Click to expand...

Then should it not be up to the local school board to eliminate junk food? It's the same rationale.

School board members are elected just as state house and senate reps. If parents don't mind their kids eating junk all day then they have a few options, pack their lunch with nothing but junk food, take it up with said lawmakers, or vote those members out of their respective respective positions.
 
#78
#78
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Then should it not be up to the local school board to eliminate junk food? It's the same rationale.

School board members are elected just as state house and senate reps. If parents don't mind their kids eating junk all day then they have a few options, pack their lunch with nothing but junk food, take it up with said lawmakers, or vote those members out of their respective respective positions.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, however, there are a number of State and Federal Regulations complicating the issue, which is part of the problem in my view.
 
#79
#79
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Then should it not be up to the local school board to eliminate junk food? It's the same rationale.

School board members are elected just as state house and senate reps. If parents don't mind their kids eating junk all day then they have a few options, pack their lunch with nothing but junk food, take it up with said lawmakers, or vote those members out of their respective respective positions.
Click to expand...

We are talking past one another.

Legally vs Philosophically.

Legally, the school board is in charge of what is deemed appropriate to serve in the cafeteria. Concerned parents from both sides have a venue to express their opinions about what ought to be served. If they don't like it, they can pack their own child's lunch.

Philosophically, I think one ought to respect another's freedom to choose whatever they want. My school always offered many different choices to choose from. In addition, we had soda machines and Chick-Fila-A sold chicken biscuits Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday mornings for two bucks a pop. They made an absolute killing. In fact, the local Chick-Fil-A (which provided the chicken biscuits) disclosed several times that they could care less how their actual store sales were going because their sales at our school would single-handedly put them in the black. Keep in mind, I attended the largest high school in the state of Georgia and had over 1,600 students in my class alone. My parents would regularly send me off to school with five dollars (four dollars for two biscuits and one dollar for a drink). That was their prerogative.

As with the soda machines, it was a win/win for the school and the company. The school got a cut which help furthered various academic programs and the companies made a great profit.

As York pointed out, using your philosophy would diminish the teacher's ability to have a birthday cake or treats throughout the school year. That happened in some of my class. Why is that right? If you don't want cake, Chick-Fil-A, or a Coke that is your prerogative. Why should those in the minority make others do without?

The pink slime you asked about is a health concern. I have not read any studies on it so I will refrain from commenting besides saying that the school board and parents of all children have a responsibility to not allow categorically toxic food to be served. Junk food is not toxic if consumed properly and in accordance with exercise.
 
#80
#80
TNGlen said:
This just in, obesity rates drop in countries where there are no video games, more playgrounds, and more PE requirements in schools.
Click to expand...

What country lacks video games? How about a link to the data you are citing there this sounds made up.
 
#81
#81
PKT_VOL said:
We are talking past one another.

Legally vs Philosophically.

Legally, the school board is in charge of what is deemed appropriate to serve in the cafeteria. Concerned parents from both sides have a venue to express their opinions about what ought to be served. If they don't like it, they can pack their own child's lunch.

Philosophically, I think one ought to respect another's freedom to choose whatever they want. My school always offered many different choices to choose from. In addition, we had soda machines and Chick-Fila-A sold chicken biscuits Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday mornings for two bucks a pop. They made an absolute killing. In fact, the local Chick-Fil-A (which provided the chicken biscuits) disclosed several times that they could care less how their actual store sales were going because their sales at our school would single-handedly put them in the black. Keep in mind, I attended the largest high school in the state of Georgia and had over 1,600 students in my class alone. My parents would regularly send me off to school with five dollars (four dollars for two biscuits and one dollar for a drink). That was their prerogative.

As with the soda machines, it was a win/win for the school and the company. The school got a cut which help furthered various academic programs and the companies made a great profit.

As York pointed out, using your philosophy would diminish the teacher's ability to have a birthday cake or treats throughout the school year. That happened in some of my class. Why is that right? If you don't want cake, Chick-Fil-A, or a Coke that is your prerogative. Why should those in the minority make others do without?

The pink slime you asked about is a health concern. I have not read any studies on it so I will refrain from commenting besides saying that the school board and parents of all children have a responsibility to not allow categorically toxic food to be served. Junk food is not toxic if consumed properly and in accordance with exercise.
Click to expand...

Actually, in some schools the lunches are being confiscated, the kids are being made to eat the food served, and then are being billed for it.

Welcome to the "new" USA where fulfilling the needs of the few is incumbent upon the many.
 
#82
#82
TNGlen said:
Actually, in some schools the lunches are being confiscated, the kids are being made to eat the food served, and then are being billed for it.

Welcome to the "new" USA where fulfilling the needs of the few is incumbent upon the many.
Click to expand...

Link? Source? Proof that this isn't a steaming pile?
 
#84
#84
That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
Click to expand...

"New" America: where schools bill you $1.25 for supplying your child with a balanced lunch.

Oh muh gawd.
 
#85
#85
Lexvol said:
My overall theory of education is simple. If you teach kids how to learn...they can educate themselves about sex, health and other issues.

Between the social agenda, political correctness and memorization for standardized health scores, nobody has any time to teach logic and reason anymore. It is making us dumber.
Click to expand...
Per usual, well said.
 
#87
#87
s1216 said:
What country lacks video games? How about a link to the data you are citing there this sounds made up.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. The point is to get off the couch and outside exercising. Regulating what kids eat isn't going to keep them in good shape. Physical activity will.
 
#88
#88
Pepe_Silvia said:
It's not the school's place to ensure a child has a school-approved lunch.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the institution designated to educate and take care of your kid 40 hours a week should have any say on what they eat?

Be that the case, then lets save money and take out the cafeteria altogether.
 
#89
#89
DinkinFlicka said:
So you don't think the institution designated to educate and take care of your kid 40 hours a week should have any say on what they eat?

Be that the case, then lets save money and take out the cafeteria altogether.
Click to expand...


If a parent has taken the time to provide their child with a lunch, then the school shouldn't confiscate said lunch and replace it with a school-approved lunch. I wouldn't really trust the government to know what's best for my kid.

I don't really know what point you were trying to make with your second sentence. I have no problem with a parents' having the option to give their kid money to buy lunch in the cafeteria.
 
#90
#90
Pepe_Silvia said:
If a parent has taken the time to provide their child with a lunch, then the school shouldn't confiscate said lunch and replace it with a school-approved lunch. I wouldn't really trust the government to know what's best for my kid.
Click to expand...

"Time taken" is not a good enough basis for the argument that the government shouldn't have a say on what a child eats at a government institution. The school had guidelines and they weren't met. Whether or not the guidelines are best, you are sending your kid to their school and it's their place to make that call. For anyone who doesn't like it, private schools are abundant.

Pepe_Silvia said:
I don't really know what point you were trying to make with your second sentence. I have no problem with a parents' having the option to give their kid money to buy lunch in the cafeteria.
Click to expand...

Point was that it's silly to get all up in arms about the school's stance in regard to what the students should eat while attending their public institution.

Should PE be mandatory?
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
DinkinFlicka said:
"Time taken" is not a good enough basis for the argument that the government shouldn't have a say on what a child eats at a government institution. The school had guidelines and they weren't met. Whether or not the guidelines are best, you are sending your kid to their school and it's their place to make that call. For anyone who doesn't like it, private schools are abundant.



Point was that it's silly to get all up in arms about the school's stance in regard to what the students should eat while attending their public institution.

Should PE be mandatory?
Click to expand...


So, once a parent has sent their child off to school, they have forfeited their parental rights? I don't agree with that.
 
#92
#92
DinkinFlicka said:
"Time taken" is not a good enough basis for the argument that the government shouldn't have a say on what a child eats at a government institution. The school had guidelines and they weren't met. Whether or not the guidelines are best, you are sending your kid to their school and it's their place to make that call. For anyone who doesn't like it, private schools are abundant.
Click to expand...
but yet we'll still pay for public schools.
DinkinFlicka said:
Point was that it's silly to get all up in arms about the school's stance in regard to what the students should eat while attending their public institution.

Should PE be mandatory?
Click to expand...
Parental guidelines should overrule school guidelines.
 
#94
#94
Pepe_Silvia said:
So, once a parent has sent their child off to school, they have forfeited their parental rights? I don't agree with that
Click to expand...

And that's absolutely fine despite the fact that lunch/health and parental rights are not the same thing.

But, since we're still on the subject of health... should PE be mandatory?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top