R.I.P. The Right to Choose (Beginning of time - 2008)

[Jam Stunna]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/11/eveningnews/main4594090.shtml

(CBS) In California it's still legal to sell cupcakes, cookies and brownies in a bakery ... but not at a school bake sale.

That fundraising slice of Americana - loaded with sugar and fat - has been banned in California schools by government order, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

Thank God the government is here to protect us from the evils of enjoying delicious food to raise money for worthy causes!

 

[derek.haines]

As much as it's for a legitimate purpose, I can't help but think this is certainly the last thing that needs to be cracked down on in an effort to combat childhood obesity. There are far larger causes that can be addressed before the anti-eating Nazis eliminate a traditional and often lucrative source of real revenue for already underfunded public schools.

It's okay to try to help little fat kids--lord knows they seem to have trouble helping themselves--but don't hurt schools while you're doing it.

 

[M.K]

As much as it's for a legitimate purpose, I can't help but think this is certainly the last thing that needs to be cracked down on in an effort to combat childhood obesity. There are far larger causes that can be addressed before the anti-eating Nazis eliminate a traditional and often lucrative source of real revenue for already underfunded public schools.

It's okay to try to help little fat kids--lord knows they seem to have trouble helping themselves--but don't hurt schools while you're doing it.

Agreed, but Childhood Obesity should really be one of the last things to worry about when dealing with the Educational system. What the hell happened to Recess?
They should just bring back Recess and focus their time on doing more background checks for teachers, updating teaching materials, and improving the educational environment.

 

[AltF4]

Or maybe they should concentrate more on... teaching.

If schools want to provide healthy meals to kids, then sure! No harm in that. But a lot of this "movement" is a waste of effort.

 

[Greenstreet]

Yeah I can understand this. Increasingly, governments are getting concerned with their nations health. I mean, the Aussie Government current scheme on health involves sending everyone a tape measure so they can check their risk of developing certain diseases. But there has to be a line. Once again it comes down to moderation and I think you can still achieve moderation by eating cupcakes everynow and again for a charity or non-profit-org.

 

[manhunter098]

Not to mention that quite frequently its not the students eating that food, its the parents who want to support the school as well as other adults who are willing to help the cause of the students. Sure some of the kids are eating it, but when it comes down to it convenience is really what drives people to obesity, and a bake sale is hardly convenient.

 

[pockyD]

well i'd certainly be much less excited about a 'tomato sale'

 

[manhunter098]

well i'd certainly be much less excited about a 'tomato sale'

Well my point was that they are failing to actually target a reasonable cause for childhood obesity. If they are going to do something as stupid as this they should at least make it so it does something to accomplish their goals.

 

[victra♥]

First off, I love the title. Second, I can understand where they're coming from with this. Health is becoming a big concern, what with the increase in obesity etc etc. I doubt that this would really change much though, seeing as how kids are usually how they are because of their family's diet.

 

[SuperBowser]

A much more effective method of tackling obesity would be teaching how to actually cook and have a balanced diet. To a lot of people, it really isn't common sense that certain foods are bad for them and need to be eaten in moderation.

It's sad how few guys and girls know how to cook at university (at least in england). One of my housemates used to eat fastfood everyday till he moved in with me and I forced him to learn .

 

[cman]

Or maybe they should concentrate more on... teaching.

If schools want to provide healthy meals to kids, then sure! No harm in that. But a lot of this "movement" is a waste of effort.

I don't think you quite understand how stupid the system is. We are not allowed to leave school to get lunch elsewhere, and the food they serve is awful. There is enough fat to cover an entire day in some of those meals (I have actually checked, and some of the stuff is worse than anything you could find at McDonalds). Healthy options are basically non-existant, unless you bring food from home. Unfortunately, there is nowhere to refridgerate or heat food brought from home.

I agree that this movement is a waste, but something really needs to be done. I think we should be allowed to leave for lunch, but then parents start complaigning when their stupid kids crash their cars.

Edit- And recess certainly needs to be added. Or at the very least, take all of the written tests out of Phys ed

 

[Mini Mic]

The Australian government has banned unhealthy food in god**** school cafeterias. Now all they can sell is ****ing healthy food because apparently, given the choice, children will eat themselves to death. You hear of parents saying 'oh it's a good thing, I don't want my child eating all that fatty food.' Here's an idea, be a good parent and don't give your child the money to buy it then.

****ing hell, why does the government feel we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. It's the parents fault for buying this **** for their children to compensate for their utter failure as providers in the first place and now that their kids are becoming fat ****s they have no idea what to do about it.

Don't even get me started on the Sometimes Food Monster.

 

[SkylerOcon]

And yet it's still not required to have physical education in American schools. Not to mention that they still sell french fries at my school.

They're going about this the wrong way. I have no problem with them trying to take measures to make sure kids stay healthy, but they're going after the wrong thing.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree with Mic. When did it become the government's job to raise children?

 

[Peeze]

Since no one is taking the government's side and this is turning into a lament more than a debate:, I'll play Devil's advocate.

The government isn't raising children, remember these are government funded schools, they can dictate what foods go where, since they buy it. If you want to control your child's diet or feed them fatty food send them to a private school.

And yes i realize that free public education is funded by OUR tax dollars, but the gov. still decides how much goes to what. Free education isn't a constitutional right, and those tax dollars could be spent differently, yet they choose to spend it on schools. Therefore their schools, their choice.

 

[SuperBowser]

I agree with Mic. When did it become the government's job to raise children?

You could argue that the true point of school is to prepare kids for the real world and eating properly is part of this. Clearly children aren't being taught this at home. Or else we wouldn't be having the health problems we do. Encouraging kids to at least try fruit and vegetables isn't a bad idea - most people like these things once they try it. The methods employed to achieve this are more debatable. I think the new rules in England have made a pretty significant difference to the % of children that eat their 5 fruit and veg in a day.

(Banning cakes at a fundraising cakesale is still dumb though).

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Or maybe they should concentrate more on... teaching.

If schools want to provide healthy meals to kids, then sure! No harm in that. But a lot of this "movement" is a waste of effort.

Agreed. Why not help? But this "movement" stuff is the government stepping well outside of their boundaries. They should focus on other things, and let the schools and the parents handle the rest. But then the parents have become a lot more lazy...

I agree with Mic too. It's not the job of the schools to raise kids, it's the parents' job. Which comes down to one point...Americans have become lax in their freedom. We have everything, and most of us take it for granted(not here in this thread, but as general Americans). Nobody wants to bear any responsibility anymore.

While it's OK to dictate which policies schools will enforce, that won't matter much if parents think it's not their job to raise their own children. The very idea of such corruption is laughable.

 

[Omis]

Since no one is taking the government's side and this is turning into a lament more than a debate:, I'll play Devil's advocate.

The government isn't raising children, remember these are government funded schools, they can dictate what foods go where, since they buy it. If you want to control your child's diet or feed them fatty food send them to a private school.

And yes i realize that free public education is funded by OUR tax dollars, but the gov. still decides how much goes to what. Free education isn't a constitutional right, and those tax dollars could be spent differently, yet they choose to spend it on schools. Therefore their schools, their choice.

Peeze puts out a good point here. It is their money and they thus should being able to have some control and say over the places they allocate it. However it should be noted that measures like this would not be necessary if parents were able to control their children better. It is an okay solution to a much bigger problem. They need to nip the parental control problem in the butt ASAP instead of using temporary petty solutions.

 

[Jam Stunna]

But the schools haven't made that decision, the state has. And if California is anything like Connecticut, then the state doesn't run the schools, the local municipalities do.

If schools in California are state-run, then I'm wrong, but I don't think they are. In that case, the state has said, "You cannot raise money by selling brownies." What gives the state the right to intrude on a local decision? And to deprive people of brownies on top of it?

 

[Omis]

But the schools haven't made that decision, the state has. And if California is anything like Connecticut, then the state doesn't run the schools, the local municipalities do.

If schools in California are state-run, then I'm wrong, but I don't think they are. In that case, the state has said, "You cannot raise money by selling brownies." What gives the state the right to intrude on a local decision? And to deprive people of brownies on top of it?

Unless I am mistaken, the state still has the right to intrude upon local affairs, as does the Federal Gov into the State Gov. Again, if I am not mistaken, the state still provides money to local schools. Regardless, I'm not to privy to government so do not take my words as law.

 

[trademark0013]

In all honesty, it isnt the gov's nor the school jobs to try and stop childhood obesity. The problem wasn't caused by either of them nor can it be stopped by them. Plus, just because I can't buy a cupcake at a bake sale doesnt mean I cant go down the street to the local corner/convenience store

 

[Zero Beat]

I agree with Mic. When did it become the government's job to raise children?

At about the same time they decided you get a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Man, when I clicked this, I coulda sworn it was gonna be an abortion debate... But on the subject, that is possible the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

 

[Mewter]

"Oh, I used to have nachos and sour cream and chili like everyday. They don't sell that any more. But now I have to settle for, like, this whatever," said one student.

This quote from the link really caught my eye.
I know I may not be one to speak, but I don't think schools really need nachos in the first place. Kids just want to eat the same stuff at school that they eat at home. Last time I checked, schools didn't even make good food. It's all boring, come to think of it. One day, I had forgotten my lunch at home, so I decided to settle for a school lunch. I'd have to say that the carrots tasted better than the rest of the meal. As long as you are going to eat flavorless food, eat healthy, at least. This kid just makes me angry. He's complaining about how they took away nachos and soda and replaced it with other things. I know he has a right to do this, but it's just silly. If he doesn't like it, then he should make his own lunch and bring it to school.

"Choices now include spinach salad, healthy burritos and grilled chicken. "

That actually sounds pretty good to me.

"School lunches no longer consist of hot dogs, french fries and nachos."

All of this they can get when they get home from school, so I'm fine with replacing it with healthier stuff. However, I have some trouble understanding why kids don't want this. I myself have never seen any necessary need for soda and nachos(of which I dislike because they don't taste good to me). If schools want to do this, fine with me. It's great. However, it is only one piece of many steps that can be taken if the government wants to lower the number of obese children in the US. Parents also need to learn to educate their children so that they make the right choices. Banning school bake sales, though? Maybe that's a bit too extreme. What's to stop them from going home and eating pie?There's nothing wrong with a bake sale, except that people tend to eat way more than they should.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

The government should be doing things to get kids healthier, but this really solves nothing. Kids don't even eat the food sold at bake sales! If they're going to do something about this, why not target the school lunches? The stuff they have there is horribly fattening. Plus, making cafeterias serve healthy food does not force kids to do anything - They can still eat crappy food if they bring lunch from home. Switching cafeteria food just makes getting healthy stuff more convenient, which will certainly do more to fight obesity than... banning the sale of unhealthy foods which kids can eat anyway...

 

[trademark0013]

Lifestyle choices govern obesity way more than dieting

 

[Mewter]

Lifestyle choices govern obesity way more than dieting

That doesn't mean that dieting doesn't help, though. What point were you trying to make with this?
If it doesn't govern obesity as much, it still counts towards your overall health. What the kids are eating at school still has a small influence on them, at least. It just disappoints me how some kids may react to the changing of school foods from junky to more healthy. Some kids act as if it's the worst thing in the world. It's silly. What they don't really care about is if it's actually good for them or not. I think it was a smart choice for the government to step in and switch the food.

 

[trademark0013]

my point is there are many other things that govern what ppl do. yes diet is important, but it doesnt mean as much w/o burning those calories off. and the gov. cant regulate what ppl do physically.

sidenote: in some places kids are allowed to go off campus for lunch and whatnot.

 

[Mewter]

my point is there are many other things that govern what ppl do. yes diet is important, but it doesnt mean as much w/o burning those calories off. and the gov. cant regulate what ppl do physically.

sidenote: in some places kids are allowed to go off campus for lunch and whatnot.

My point is that diet can still help, though. I would guess that people who consciously try to eat healthy would exercise,but you're right, some people don't. At least dieting is healthier than eating junk. All the schools are doing are giving them more opportunities for healthier food.
In most places, though, kids still eat at school. Let them eat how they want to. The government is just making healthy foods easier to get.
By the way, the less the amount of calories in food, the less you have to burn off. You get more essential stuff and less unnecessary stuff. I agree that other things are just as important, though. Exercise is a big factor. They should try to maximize teaching quality and physical education and keep both in check.

 

[Ref]

Rules like these in schools have actually been around for a while. If you ever seen those vending machines in schools, they only contain what is said to be healthy. You can actually be punished for drinking soda in school. Soda should only be sold in the teachers lounge... They were taken out of vending machines in schools.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/05/no.sodas.ap/index.html

However the main difference is the vending machines stayed and still make the school money. Banning Bake sales takes away a huge part of school funding. It is actually ridiculous for reasons stated by Mic. Children can only buy as much treats as money they have for them. Parents give the students money.

The parents give as much money to their kids as they want the kids to waste.... There is no need to ban what parents are doing to their kids, unless they want to dictate how parents raise their kids. Dictating parenting to the point in what they feed their children isn't exactly freedom in the United States...

 

[M.K]

I remember seeing a special on CNN about the "Lunch Box Police", which prevented kids that had any sort of sweets in their lunch to eat the sweets. That is just absurd.
If you are going to eat a healthy turkey sandwich, a bag of potato chips, and a Water, I think I can have a few of the cookies that I paid MY money for and not become morbidly obese.
Recess is the solution! As long as you bring back the OPTION of having an "exercise"-worthy time, then the schools can't complain about some kid who doesn't exercise at the designated time.

EDIT:

Half the stuff in my vending machine at my school is supposed to be "Healthy", but it's that stuff that you look at and say "Yeah, it's supposed to be healthy, but it has no flavor, and it's still not even THAT much lower than the normal chips".

 

[trademark0013]

All the schools are doing are giving them more opportunities for healthier food.

this is a good point. most of the healthier things are more expensive and an indirect reason for the obesity issue that ppl complain bout. $6 wrap or $1 dbl cheeseburger? esp where i'm from, 2nd options is unanimous except on a few good days

 

[RDK]

Wow. How did I miss this thread?

At first I didn't even believe Jam's post, that's how absurd the quote was. Then I actually looked up the article and found it to be true.

To make the sale of "unhealthy" foods (whatever that even means) illegal on school premises when it's for a good cause is completely ridiculous; I don't care how many of the kids in that school are overweight. If they want to be fat little kids, then let them. That's their own personal choice and their own problem. If they don't want fattening foods, then they shouldn't buy them.

I remember seeing a special on CNN about the "Lunch Box Police", which prevented kids that had any sort of sweets in their lunch to eat the sweets. That is just absurd.
If you are going to eat a healthy turkey sandwich, a bag of potato chips, and a Water, I think I can have a few of the cookies that I paid MY money for and not become morbidly obese.
Recess is the solution! As long as you bring back the OPTION of having an "exercise"-worthy time, then the schools can't complain about some kid who doesn't exercise at the designated time.

^ That's sickening. And it's one school I wouldn't be sending my kid to.

Honestly, when government-funded operations like schools start telling kids what and what not to eat, it's a sad day for America. They need to f*ck off and let me decide what my children eat.

 

[Deleted member]

Zero Beat owned you guys all hard and no one even noticed.

 

[SuperBowser]

To make the sale of "unhealthy" foods (whatever that even means) illegal on school premises when it's for a good cause is completely ridiculous; I don't care how many of the kids in that school are overweight. If they want to be fat little kids, then let them. That's their own personal choice and their own problem. If they don't want fattening foods, then they shouldn't buy them.

Is there a middle ground?

 

[Aesir]

Out of touch politics is lol.

At about the same time they decided you get a ticket for not wearing your seatbelt.

The Risk of driving without a seatbelt, and the risk of eating a cupcake are no where near the same, they're not even comparable.

People's brain matter becomes scattered all over the high way when you don't wear a seat belt. When you eat cupcakes you just take up more space; and over a steady progression you adopt an unhealthy life style.

However unlike the former you can fix the latter.


If they really cared they would educate the kids on what unhealthy food can do to your health. Also if they really cared they would create higher standards of healthy food not banning sweets.

 

[Jam Stunna]

So what? When did it become the government's job to protect you from yourself? If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and risk an untimely death, when did that become Congress's problem?

 

[RDK]

So what? When did it become the government's job to protect you from yourself? If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and risk an untimely death, when did that become Congress's problem?

Which brings up another thing I have a hard time understanding: why it's illegal to commit suicide. Doesn't the individual have the final say in whether or not he wants to continue living?

Granted, there are psychological elements to be considered, but still--we all have the right to die if we so choose.

 

[Aesir]

So what? When did it become the government's job to protect you from yourself? If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and risk an untimely death, when did that become Congress's problem?

It's usually a bad thing to have a lot of people die especially when the cause is so easily fixable. I dunno maybe that's just me.

Furthermore I wouldn't want my insurance rates to go up because some guy doesn't wear his seat belt because he thinks the government is trying to take control of their lives. (that is if I drove)

 

[cman]

Which brings up another thing I have a hard time understanding: why it's illegal to commit suicide. Doesn't the individual have the final say in whether or not he wants to continue living?

Granted, there are psychological elements to be considered, but still--we all have the right to die if we so choose.

I've heard, though i can not confirm, that it has something to do with a loophole that could potentially allow you classify a murder as helping someone kill themselves, which might make the crime legal.