I would be howling for blood. If I went to the trouble to pack my child's lunch and a state employee fed my child a product made from disgusting gelled chicken it's quite likely that state would be mugged and beaten severely in a dark alley by an unknown assailant in a botched robbery attempt. No milk? here's a quarter: give my daughter a milk.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19842315
A mom in North Carolina said her daughter ate three chicken nuggets for lunch — because an official thought the lunch she brought from home was unhealthy.
The offending ingredients? A turkey sandwich with cheese, a banana, apple juice — and potato chips, the Carolina Journal reported.
But the irate mom told the newspaper that a state employee inspecting lunch bags declared the food unhealthy because it was missing a vegetable and milk.
Instead, the preschool reportedly gave the 4-year-old a lunch from the cafeteria, which she apparently picked through.
"What got me so mad is, number one, don't tell my kid I'm not packing her lunch box properly," the mom, who wished to stay anonymous, told the newspaper. "I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of vegetables. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn't really care for vegetables."
The incident came amid a surging concentration on the nutrition in school lunches.
A spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said the lunch the preschooler brought from home seemed to meet the guidelines, according to the Journal.
The rules, which can result in parents being billed an extra $1.25 in cafeteria fees, is to allow child care providers to step in if parents send blatantly unhealthy food with their kids, like a Coke and a Twinkie, the spokeswoman added to the newspaper.
One: The moron from the state needs to be properly educated that fruit and vegetables are fairly interchangeable, from a nutritional stand point.
Two: A turkey and cheese sandwich, which the child probably would have completely eaten, is a better lunch than chicken nuggets.
The school is now likely open to a lawsuit over this. I know I would be discussing things with a lawyer.
Is the Daily News a reputable source? This whole story sounds odd. Assuming it is true I don't think we are looking at a national trend but just one stupid person at a school.
Literally the nanny state at work. Thge packed lunch was way better for the munchkin that processed beaks and claws. Plus the munchkin didn't actually eat it.
back in my day we had mammoth burgers, and we were glad we had 'em.
A spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said the lunch the preschooler brought from home seemed to meet the guidelines, according to the Journal.
The rules, which can result in parents being billed an extra $1.25 in cafeteria fees, is to allow child care providers to step in if parents send blatantly unhealthy food with their kids, like a Coke and a Twinkie, the spokeswoman added to the newspaper.
Before we get any further into the whole "nanny state" bit, this is quite clearly a case of one official being in the wrong.
I'd rather take something from home than have the heavily processed greasy "mashed" "potatoes" and whatever that brown overcooked meat is (it's past well done I swear, whaever it is), and that macaroni in some sort of yellowish white slop that has some artificial cheese flavorings in it but we don't really think is actually cheese, which was often what was served when I was in high school.
I sincerely doubt they've changed enough that the chicken nuggets are made from the GOOD aprts of the chicken.
Kanluwen wrote:Before we get any further into the whole "nanny state" bit, this is quite clearly a case of one official being in the wrong.
It's OK for a school official to inspect lunches, but only if they make the 'right decisions'?
You seem to be deciding where the emphasis is here and running with it. Perhaps 'being in the wrong' was referring to the school official inspecting the lunch, not to the rightness or wrongness of the decision.
Wouldn't this story have been much more interesting if it were "Preschoolers replaced by CHICKEN NUGGETS"?
Technically speaking, pizza sauce is tomato based ,which makes it a vegetable product (not a vegetable, but a derivative food whichi is primarily vegetable).
Ahtman wrote:You seem to be deciding where the emphasis is here and running with it. Perhaps 'being in the wrong' was referring to the school official inspecting the lunch, not to the rightness or wrongness of the decision."
If you can explain the "Before we get any further into the whole 'nanny state' bit" part of that quote, I will retract my comment.
Ahtman wrote:Is the Daily News a reputable source? This whole story sounds odd. Assuming it is true I don't think we are looking at a national trend but just one stupid person at a school.
The story originates in North Carolina and was carried by the Greensboro Gazette first I believe, then News Corp picked it up and I dislike posting links from Fox news because the end up with headlines like "Federal Agents Inspect Your Child's Lunch," ok that was Rush, but the only reason Fox didn't use it is because he got there first.
I'm not not saying it's a national trend, I'm saying it's wrong. It's wrong one time, it's wrong a thousand times. A cafeteria worker is not an "official" and if they school has a dedicated worker checking lunches, who is an official, at one school permanently or district wide. Well, first of all that's wasteful, whatever they are paying this silly bitch can be spent in subsidizing breakfast and lunch for kids that actually need it, and second you'd think they would train them to at least a minimal level of competance.
Absolutely ridiculous. Not only inspecting lunch bags but then to replace a healthy lunch with chicken nuggets? It is the parents responsibility to feed their children a healthy, balanced diet and theirs alone. If the child becomes unhealthy due to their decisions then I believe intervention should occur but until then, it is the parents decision and the school should stay out of it and focus upon education.
Its funny that when you get to collge is when the food gets healthy to an extent but all the damage is done. At my school in the cafeteria i was surprised to find all the food freshly made daily and nothing is bought but ingrediants.
But More OT: I would kill for that lunch. Right now im staring at a pastrami sandwich and cookies.
Really i took to breaking the rules to get good food at my highschool or not eating at all. It was disgusting
Thankfully, this is my last year of public school, and after this, I'll be eating out of a mess hall on ship somewhere
Our lunches are awful (chicken nuggets, pizza, burgers, hot dogs, spagetti, tacos, sloppy joes), but they give us a vegetable, a fruit and a milk, along with a side of something else horrible for you (fries, baked potato, tater tots, corn, corn muffin). Nothing to complain about, really. This is high school though.
Elementary school was pizza at least twice a week, burgers once, and chicken nuggets the other two days. They gave us a milk. maybe some corn or french fries. And a candy bar (not joking, lol).
I do think kids should drink milk. At least a cup a day. My mom still doesn't buy milk, so I have to get it at school and at friend's houses.
I can't believe that, really. I didn't know it was within a school's jurisdiction to determine what a student eats.
Ahtman wrote:You seem to be deciding where the emphasis is here and running with it. Perhaps 'being in the wrong' was referring to the school official inspecting the lunch, not to the rightness or wrongness of the decision."
If you can explain the "Before we get any further into the whole 'nanny state' bit" part of that quote, I will retract my comment.
It is suddenly my job to explain how statements can be interpreted in more than one way, especially when the language used isn't one of specificity? The sentence could easily be interpreted as saying "Before turning this into a national debate about the government, using coded language and rhetorical hyperbole, I want to say the person in this specific instance was wrong". Now it isn't really clear what they are wrong about so it could either be that they were wrong for getting into the child's lunch or for taking it away. It is not clear. "It was wrong" doesn't really give enough information at this point when there are several different issues for possible discussion. Now if you had asked what they thought the official was wrong about and it was clarified that, indeed, they thought it was ok to take the child's lunch but that they were wrong for replacing it with chicken nuggets then your statement would make sense in context, but as it is we don't really know so, as I said, you have made an assumption and ran with it.
Damn near every day from about 6th grade on to about my sophmore year in high school, I ate a meat/cheese/lettuce sandwich, had a soda, a small bag of chips, and a twinkie or equivalent, and I was remarkably fit. I didn't become a fat guy until afterwards, when I discovered beer.
Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, pizza sauce is tomato based ,which makes it a vegetable product (not a vegetable, but a derivative food whichi is primarily vegetable).
That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.
Easy E wrote:That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.
When does a tomato stop becoming a vegetable? When it's mashed, puree'd and canned? When it is put on the dough? Once the cheese is applied?
Ahtman wrote:It is suddenly my job to explain how statements can be interpreted in more than one way, especially when the language used isn't one of specificity?
When you're the one advocating for an alternative explanation, yeah.
Ahtman wrote:as I said, you have made an assumption and ran with it.
Clearly you missed the question mark at the end of my comment.
Melissia wrote:Technically speaking, pizza sauce is tomato based ,which makes it a vegetable product (not a vegetable, but a derivative food whichi is primarily vegetable).
That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.
Well, a 'proper' pizza will likely have green peppers and onions on it as well, so I'd say that between sauce and those, you probably have at least a single service of veggie.
Easy E wrote:That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.
When does a tomato stop becoming a vegetable? When it's mashed, puree'd and canned? When it is put on the dough? Once the cheese is applied?
When there is more sugar, preservatives, and artificial goop then tomato.
Also, Whatever happened to the presidents idea of getting a cooperation between school cafeterias and farmers markets?
Thats good enough, 'liquid tomato' is tomato. I am more concerned with whats added, well I'm not I eat anything, but for the same of argument pizza sauce can count as one of your five a day if its properly prepared in the right quantity and from the right source.
biccat wrote:When does a tomato stop becoming a vegetable? When it's mashed, puree'd and canned? When it is put on the dough? Once the cheese is applied?
A tomato stops being a vegetable the moment you discard the plant and keep the big red fruit.
biccat wrote:When you're the one advocating for an alternative explanation, yeah.
It isn't so much that I am advocating an alternative explanation as pointing out the statement was vague and that you decided for yourself what others mean without knowing what they meant. I also notice that even after explaining it you are not retracting your statement, as you stated you would.
biccat wrote:When you're the one advocating for an alternative explanation, yeah.
It isn't so much that I am advocating an alternative explanation as pointing out the statement was vague and that you decided for yourself what others mean without knowing what they meant. I also notice that even after explaining it you are not retracting your statement, as you stated you would.
Just because you're such a nice guy Ahtman, I changed my response to Kanluwen.
White knighting for a white knight, I never thought I'd see the day.
Kanluwen wrote:Before we get any further into the whole "nanny state" bit, this is quite clearly a case of one official being in the wrong.
It's OK for a school official to inspect lunches, but only if they make the 'right decisions'?
I'd rather avoid trying to determine whether chicken nuggets are healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich.
Since school officials(teachers and administrators) are effectively acting custodial guardians, yes it's okay for them to inspect lunches.
The entire purpose of a school is to foster the development of a child's education and their well-being.
This case is simply the official being wrong unless there's something which puts the whole thing into context missing from the article.
For all we know, the turkey or other parts of the bagged lunch were obviously spoiled or presenting with something that made this particular official think it wasn't in the child's best interest to eat the food. Given that the child's mother says she packs the lunch all the time but had never been confronted with this problem before. Also given the way public schools here in North Carolina have the whole food inspector role being filled by a principal or vice principal(with many of the elementary schools here having principals who have impressive backgrounds in child development and several children of their own), I'm more inclined to give the system some leeway.
biccat wrote:So what you're saying Kan, is that my original post was correct in its inference and Ahtman was being needlessly pedantic?
Thanks for the clarification of your original comment, it is appreciated.
Ahtman was actually correct in his statement regarding the part that you seemed to focus on, "the nanny state" bit. This isn't a case of "big government ruining our children!"--it's a case of a school official, likely a vice principal, making a decision.
Without the specifics of the situation, it comes off as the official making a stupid decision. But like I said, there's factors which could have been making the official state that it wasn't in the child's interest to eat the home prepared meal and instead give them a meal from the cafeteria.
daedalus wrote:Damn near every day from about 6th grade on to about my sophmore year in high school, I ate a meat/cheese/lettuce sandwich, had a soda, a small bag of chips, and a twinkie or equivalent, and I was remarkably fit. I didn't become a fat guy until afterwards, when I discovered beer.
Nobody wants to work out, and it's not their fault they eat unhealthily. Therefore, we need people telling us what to eat.
you can thank michelle obama for this. she's been trying to bark up the food control tree ever since her husband came to office, this is why schools have begun serving this inedible gak for our young to consume.
Ok... Further research into this has revealed something interesting.....
what we already know:
the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice
The "Standard" being applied:
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.
Now... the sandwich had Cheese, a milk product. In most cases, a single slice of cheese is considered to equal one serving. So, Milk was covered by the cheese in the sandwich.
The lunch also included a whole banana and Apple juice which would cover the requirement for "two servings of fruit or vegetables."
As far as I can see the packed lunch, which the child's mother stated the child would eat, fulfilled the USDA requirements.
Serving the child a school lunch that the child did not eat actually may have been in violation of the same standard.
daedalus wrote:Damn near every day from about 6th grade on to about my sophmore year in high school, I ate a meat/cheese/lettuce sandwich, had a soda, a small bag of chips, and a twinkie or equivalent, and I was remarkably fit. I didn't become a fat guy until afterwards, when I discovered beer.
Nobody wants to work out, and it's not their fault they eat unhealthily. Therefore, we need people telling us what to eat.
Well, yeah, I know that, but I just want to hear the people admit it.
helgrenze wrote:Ok... Further research into this has revealed something interesting.....
You mean reading the article, right? Because that's all in there.
what we already know:
the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice
The "Standard" being applied:
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.
Now... the sandwich had Cheese, a milk product. In most cases, a single slice of cheese is considered to equal one serving. So, Milk was covered by the cheese in the sandwich.
The lunch also included a whole banana and Apple juice which would cover the requirement for "two servings of fruit or vegetables."
As far as I can see the packed lunch, which the child's mother stated the child would eat, fulfilled the USDA requirements.
Yes, but like I said earlier...there might very well be circumstances which make the official look like less of an idiot. I live in North Carolina. I went through the public school system, as have both of my brothers(with one still currently in there). The "inspections" that they do--which they don't really do in the manner that someone might think, they don't ask you to dump out your food and check it. They generally just ask you what you have for lunch. The only time I think I ever saw an administrator tell a child to dispose of their home lunch and get something from the cafeteria was when the administrator noticed something like mold on the bread or a foul odor emanating from the food.
Serving the child a school lunch that the child did not eat actually may have been in violation of the same standard.
Probably not. The option for the meal was there, the child chose not to eat it.
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.
Serving the child a school lunch that the child did not eat actually may have been in violation of the same standard.
Probably not. The option for the meal was there, the child chose not to eat it.
Agreed. Check the bolded part. A lunch just has to be served with those items, it doesn't have to be eaten.
As to the school official, who knows what really happened. If this was a mistake, let's hope they learn from it and adjust their practices. If the mother of the child is being inaccurate (perhaps the food was spoiled, perhaps she didn't actually pack what she said she did), then lets all commend the school official on a job well done.
Grakmar wrote:Check the bolded part. A lunch just has to be served with those items, it doesn't have to be eaten.
Given the choice between the kid between giving the kid a "nutritious" lunch and only eating a few chicken nuggets or given (and eating) a "non-nutritious" turkey sandwich with cheese and fruit, is it preferable to give the kid the nutritious or non-nutritious lunch?
Lets assume for the moment that for some reason the non-nutritious lunch doesn't meet FDA guidelines, for whatever reasons.
Kanluwen wrote:Except this kind of crap was served before Obama came into office, so negative on that remilia.
They had these kinds of meals when I was in middle and high school.
Agreed.
Hell, two years ago we would get "Pork Chops" for lunch Monday, "Steak" for lunch Wednesday, and then "Chicken" for lunch Friday.
And it always tasted the same.
And by tasted the same I'm sure you'll you meant "tasted like cat."
Wo calm down TBone, no you can't have an school made catburgers. No I don't care what Genghis Connie told you. You have to watch these wiener dogs, they're little liars.
Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?
Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?
Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?
CHicken Nuggets are absolutely healthy.
"Chicken" Nuggets are not, however.
Well 6 McDonald's chicken nuggets have 250 calories and 14g of protein...that's not bad at all.
Thing to note: here in NC, many school systems get the chicken "breast tenders"(they purposely don't use nuggets for the very reason that it's junkmeat) supplied to them by the Perdue company.
Or at least, that's what the high school my brother's at has going on.
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.
Is that a North Carolina department, or the federal department?
Here's what I think we should do to fat people; when we set up universal healthcare, we should have a doctor determine whether or not their obesity is genetic or if it's their fault. If it is their fault, they're taxed slightly more.
However, the government does not get to pick what people eat.
I've butched, plucked and cooked chickens and I'v not seen any part of the foul that in any way resembles a nugget.
No one should eat them, its disgusting once you know how they get the meat.
LoneLictor wrote:Here's what I think we should do to fat people; when we set up universal healthcare, we should have a doctor determine whether or not their obesity is genetic or if it's their fault. If it is their fault, they're taxed slightly more.
However, the government does not get to pick what people eat.
The stupidity in this statement blows my mind.
Not only do you want state prejudice against fat people when its 'their fault' as you say, you are also saying the government doesn't get to force you do stuff against your will, after they force you do something against your will.
Please explain this hyocrisy.
Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?
CHicken Nuggets are absolutely healthy.
"Chicken" Nuggets are not, however.
Well 6 McDonald's chicken nuggets have 250 calories and 14g of protein...that's not bad at all.
Its not the calories or protein. It s the processed packed meat that goes into it. ita made from scraps pressed to look like chicken breast.
I honestly don't care if the food is processed packed meat, my qualms with mcdonalds come from it tasting like ass 90% of the time and the lack of any nutritional value.
Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
It depends on the type of juice. I don't know how it is in the U.K., but here in the U.S. there are potentially dozens of different types of apple juice, some healthy, some not.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Its not the calories or protein. It s the processed packed meat that goes into it. ita made from scraps pressed to look like chicken breast.
For some strange reason, people seem to equate "things I think are gross" with "unhealthy". That is honestly, rarely the case. For example, I think a great deal of different types of fish are "gross", but that doesn't invalidate their nutritional value. Without knowing the specific nutritional value of these chicken nuggets, it's difficult to say they are unhealthy.
biccat wrote:Given the choice between the kid between giving the kid a "nutritious" lunch and only eating a few chicken nuggets or given (and eating) a "non-nutritious" turkey sandwich with cheese and fruit, is it preferable to give the kid the nutritious or non-nutritious lunch?
Lets assume for the moment that for some reason the non-nutritious lunch doesn't meet FDA guidelines, for whatever reasons.
A child's hunger strike does not affect this situation, does it? Otherwise, we must conclude that because little Johnny does not like broccoli, but does like chocolate cake, the cake must have better nutritional value than broccoli.
To put it another way, the nutritional value of the meal that is served is not dependent on whether the child eats it. The meal is still equally nutritious. Whether or not the child will eat it is an entirely separate issue.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Its not the calories or protein. It s the processed packed meat that goes into it. ita made from scraps pressed to look like chicken breast.
For some strange reason, people seem to equate "things I think are gross" with "unhealthy". That is honestly, rarely the case. For example, I think a great deal of different types of fish are "gross", but that doesn't invalidate their nutritional value. Without knowing the specific nutritional value of these chicken nuggets, it's difficult to say they are unhealthy.
I think its gross because alot of the time meat like that is forced through chlorine baths and is the discard or other food.
For some strange reason, people seem to equate "things I think are gross" with "unhealthy". That is honestly, rarely the case. For example, I think a great deal of different types of fish are "gross", but that doesn't invalidate their nutritional value. Without knowing the specific nutritional value of these chicken nuggets, it's difficult to say they are unhealthy.
My disagreement is not in the nutritional value, it's how awful I think it is. When I have kids they will take sack lunches specifically to avoid processed foods like chicken nuggets. I don't think my kids should be ingesting ground bones, connective tissue, and chlorine processed dog food that is now fit for human consumption. If I went to the trouble to pack a sandwich, 2 fruits, and a natural fruit drink my kid left the house well fed and I have done my duty as a parent. If someone who is not my child's parent takes that food away from them and forces them to eat something I have not approved for their consumption and because of that goes hungry; now my child is not well fed. That is not the decision of the school to make. Especially not when the school uses standards that consider french fries, tomatoes sauce, and ketchup vegetables. It IS the decision of the parent what their child eats, what if pork chops were the meal of the day and the kid followed Kosher? What if the kid was vegetarian, or allergic? NOT the place of the school to interfere with the parents in the cafeteria until and unless it becomes a health and welfare issue, and then it's not the SCHOOL that get's involved.
Easy E wrote:That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.
When does a tomato stop becoming a vegetable? When it's mashed, puree'd and canned? When it is put on the dough? Once the cheese is applied?
When there is more sugar, preservatives, and artificial goop then tomato.
Also, Whatever happened to the presidents idea of getting a cooperation between school cafeterias and farmers markets?
Easy E wrote:That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.
When does a tomato stop becoming a vegetable? When it's mashed, puree'd and canned? When it is put on the dough? Once the cheese is applied?
When there is more sugar, preservatives, and artificial goop then tomato.
Also, Whatever happened to the presidents idea of getting a cooperation between school cafeterias and farmers markets?
The republicans didn't like it.
Yes, because getting healthy food to ur nation childrens would somehow harm america. They probably called the farmer terrorist trying to poison children.
Was there ever a bill introduced in Congress or the Senate that the Republicans opposed? Is it even feasible for local farmers to provide all of the crops to schools? Even if it is, how would this affect the cost of school meals?
Schools don't get supplies from major farms simply because they hate the environment. Big farm operations are very cost-effective. This is, IMO, a good thing. YMMV.
IcyCool wrote:A child's hunger strike does not affect this situation, does it? Otherwise, we must conclude that because little Johnny does not like broccoli, but does like chocolate cake, the cake must have better nutritional value than broccoli.
Chocolate cake is not an inherently bad food, nor is broccoli inherently good. Johnny could certainly receive some nutritional benefit from chocolate cake, and it might even be preferable if the the alternative is not eating at all.
What a child will or will not eat certainly affects the nutritional value that they receive from lunch. If the objective of the school lunch screening program is to ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school (rather than just serving the right food), then they should definitely consider what the kids will or will not eat. Particularly if the decision is between the child eating a marginally healthy lunch and not eating a fully healthy lunch. Your argument is one of form over substance.
Briefly to address the in loco parentis argument presented by others; the school does not have an absolute right, and particularly does not have the right to overrule a parent's decision making.
Was there ever a bill introduced in Congress or the Senate that the Republicans opposed? Is it even feasible for local farmers to provide all of the crops to schools? Even if it is, how would this affect the cost of school meals?
Schools don't get supplies from major farms simply because they hate the environment. Big farm operations are very cost-effective. This is, IMO, a good thing. YMMV.
So cost effectivness is better then feeding children healthy food.
Maybe if the governemnt subsidized the organic food rather then all the GMO food.
IcyCool wrote:
A child's hunger strike does not affect this situation, does it?
Yes, but only because the school cannot really coerce a child into eating something.
I remember in the distant and murky past of the early 90's being dropped off at (private) day care, and not being allowed to have my food provided by my parents. This lead to a lot of not eating (and eventually being allowed to have food from home), because all they could really do is put me into "timeout" or something similar.
I was 4-5, its hazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Chocolate cake is not an inherently bad food, nor is broccoli inherently good. Johnny could certainly receive some nutritional benefit from chocolate cake, and it might even be preferable if the the alternative is not eating at all.
Given what "bad food" generally means, yes it is.
That said, I agree that "bad food" doesn't mean much, and relies on many assumptions.
First of all regarding the matter or the tomato/sauce discussion. A tomato is a fruit.
Now on to the other subject. Should teachers/monitors be searching a kids lunch bag and replacing it at thier discretion with something else? No.
Both the searching of the lunch, and the replacement of the lunch were wrong.
The searching is apparently a policy they have decided to do, and is wrong and is nanny state stuff.. The person who did the searching, the making the lunch switch decision was really wrong. The searching was them doing what they were told is their job.
I am not sure how it is in the rest of the states, but in Oregon, we have mandatory reporting laws for people such as teachers, police officers, nurses, etc etc etc. Mandatory reporting is for signs of harm to children, in which case they are obligated to file a report with child services and/or the police if they suspect something amiss. Of course for some reason they often fail to do so here even in clear cut cases where they actually see children being assaulted. It is also a crime to fail to report something.
Anyways, back to the point. Instead of searching lunches, could they not just stroll around the cafeteria and observe? Then if they see a child with nothing but a twinkie and soda for lunch or less, they could do the proper investigating/reporting?
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Anyways, back to the point. Instead of searching lunches, could they not just stroll around the cafeteria and observe? Then if they see a child with nothing but a twinkie and soda for lunch or less, they could do the proper investigating/reporting?
That's...actually pretty reasonable, and in line with other abuse observations.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:It just seems less intrusive, and less work, and well more common sense. You know, instead of searching through every lunch bag.
Yeah, public school has gotten a bit odd since I graduated HS.
I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.
It is funny though, because a lot of the objection (not your's) in this thread has revolved around giving public school employees too much power, while the regulation in question gives them less than they might have under a generic child abuse statute.
LoneLictor wrote:Here's what I think we should do to fat people; when we set up universal healthcare, we should have a doctor determine whether or not their obesity is genetic or if it's their fault. If it is their fault, they're taxed slightly more.
However, the government does not get to pick what people eat.
Do you think that food vendors should be allowed to serve sawdust, poison and drugs?
Of course not.
Then the government has a role in picking what people eat.
It was true in mediaeval times, and it's even more true now that food technology has produced so many different additives.
dogma wrote:I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.
So did I, and mine wasn't a swiss army knife.
I still remember the year they tried to ban all button-down long coats. Not just trenchcoats, but dusters too, rain cloaks, ponchos-- any coat or coatlike item that went below the waist.
And not only that, our vice principle was a total douchebag about it and everything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warrior Squirrel wrote:
You know sugar isn't intrinsically bad, right?
Most of the nutrition is lost when made into juice.
So? Sugar itself isn't actually bad. In fact, I frequently find myself with a deficiency in it (hypoglycemia), myself, requiring me to do something like... I dunno... drink fruit juice or something. Oddly enough the sweetness from fruit juice or fruit snacks I've found reduces the cravings the most-- more than, say, sodas or chocolate or other candies.
dogma wrote:I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.
So did I, and mine wasn't a swiss army knife.
I still remember the year they tried to ban all button-down long coats. Not just trenchcoats, but dusters too, rain cloaks, ponchos-- any coat or coatlike item that went below the waist.
And not only that, our vice principle was a total douchebag about it and everything else.
Wait they tried that, in Texas???
In normal years a good duster/trenchcoat is required wearing on many days due to constant rain - like in the last two months (HURRAY! come on break that drought do it!). Not to mention that two weeks of winter we have.
dogma wrote:I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.
So did I, and mine wasn't a swiss army knife.
I still remember the year they tried to ban all button-down long coats. Not just trenchcoats, but dusters too, rain cloaks, ponchos-- any coat or coatlike item that went below the waist.
And not only that, our vice principle was a total douchebag about it and everything else.
Wait they tried that, in Texas???
In normal years a good duster/trenchcoat is required wearing on many days due to constant rain - like in the last two months (HURRAY! come on break that drought do it!). Not to mention that two weeks of winter we have.
Yyyup. Zero Tolerance and fear of school shootouts were the justifications for it.
Zero Tolerance is the worst thing to happen to schools since schools began.
hotsauceman1 wrote:So cost effectivness is better then feeding children healthy food.
Well, I personally like being able to buy food at current prices. I'd rather pay $.50 for a tomato than $1 for a tomato.
Besides, by producing more food we have fewer hungry people.
Organic food isn't necessarily better, and even if subsidized, would never meet our food demands because it's inefficient.
And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.
Also Many countries seem to do fine with organic only. Like mexico before the whole drug cartel crisis.
And besides. if proper organic practices where followed we could.
George Spiggott wrote:Chicken nuggets are a vegetable now? Fair enough, 'cause they sure ain't meat.
Made me think of this meme
To be honest, there is a real problem at the moment in the UK with schoolkids eating crap food.
As much as Jamie Oliver (celebrity chef here in the UK) irritates me, I admire what he was trying to do with campaigning for healthier school lunches.
After he had introduced a new menu at a particular school, there was a news report of parents going to the school and pushing hamburgers through the fences to desperate looking children (seriously).
I was also reading the other day that there are a growing number of kids going to school who haven't even been potty trained, and it's putting a lot of stress on the teachers.
TBH it's obvious that there is an increase in the amount of gakky parenting, and parents who just make zero effort with their kids.
The problem is, while this is obvious to most of the population who do look after their children, unfortunately it would be absolute political suicide for any politician come out and say that something needs to be done about it.
biccat wrote:
"Fruit" isn't really a term that's well defined, at least nutritionally. Vegetable is. A tomato is a vegetable.
The confusion is between the two, you can't claim one is poorly defined and the other is not.
Hence the point of "Is a tomato a vegetable?"
And no, it isn't well defined, not even in the nutritional field.
Nix v. Hedden, the US Supreme Court case, classified the tomato as a vegetable. This was basically because vegetables are served with a meal, and fruits are served with desert. A tomato is served with a meal, therefor it is a vegetable.
Yes, this decision was idiotic.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Organic food isn't necessarily better, and even if subsidized, would never meet our food demands because it's inefficient.
I know you know what is wrong with what you wrote, but I also know you will never admit to it; so I'll spell it out.
Inefficiency is not the same thing as being unable to meet demand, especially if demand is predicated on perceived need and not just desire.
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).
It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).
Grakmar wrote:The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).
It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).
Grakmar wrote:The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).
It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).
A Danish study on organic farming. "A total abolition of pesticide use would result in an average drop in farming yields of between 10% and 25%, at the farm level; the smallest losses would occur in cattle farming. On farms that have a large proportion of special crops, such as potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass, the production losses in terms of quantity would be closer to 50%. These crops would probably be ousted by other crops."
"We found crop yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%."
Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so.
Our present food procurement is already inefficient, we could hugely reduce our overhead if more people were vegetarians (meat is expensive in more ways than one), or simply ate less meat.
But I've heard the argument you're making before, and it seems odd. My guess, among those of others, is that organic farming would roughly halve the world's food supply. It would increase costs, but not leave people malnourished given the correct policies.
Of course, it doesn't matter, because "organic" doesn't mean "good".
Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).
It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).
Meat would be rare? you mean as it was in our natural diet when we where hunters and gathers?
Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so.
Our present food procurement is already inefficient, we could hugely reduce our overhead if more people were vegetarians (meat is expensive in more ways than one), or simply ate less meat.
I believe that was the gist of the rest of my paragraph.
dogma wrote:But I've heard the argument you're making before, and it seems odd. My guess, among those of others, is that organic farming would roughly halve the world's food supply. It would increase costs, but not leave people malnourished given the correct policies.
In the US, we would absolutely be fine. Food prices would go up dramatically, making things even more difficult on the poor, but we would survive. In countries that struggle with poor soil, droughts, or overpopulation, they would not be able to sustain themselves on organic foods (they struggle to sustain themselves with using artificial means to enhance yield) and massive starvation would occur.
dogma wrote:Of course, it doesn't matter, because "organic" doesn't mean "good".
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
The issue is that growing "organic" food isn't as efficient (in terms of yield per acre) as growing traditional foods. This means that if the entire world switched over to growing organic foods, we would only be able to meet the basic nutritional needs for 4 billion people or so. And, 2-3 billion would die. But, this is assuming we keep the same ratios of food we've currently growing. We could switch to crops that are higher calorie counts and we'd manage to feed everyone (or, at least as well as we do now).
It would mean that meat would be incredibly rare, as would all the plants that take up a lot of room and don't produce many calories. But, we could survive (assuming we stick with using "artificial" fertilizers that most of the world's land needs).
Meat would be rare? you mean as it was in our natural diet when we where hunters and gathers?
Yes. Or, like it is in many non-western cultures today.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And westerners are the epitomy of healthiness and fitness huh?
It depends. Having a larger variety in foods and more availability of foods definitely results in being healthier. That's one of the reasons expected lifespans are pushing 80 years, rather then 30 or so in the Middle Ages. Trying to survive on just one or two crops and the occasional glass of milk or cheese isn't good for you. Increased food availability leads to being healthier.
But, it can definitely go too far. Plenty of Americans (and others, but, sadly, mostly Americans) have taken the widespread availability of food and ran with it and are now facing health problems from eating way too much.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And westerners are the epitomy of healthiness and fitness huh?
It depends. Having a larger variety in foods and more availability of foods definitely results in being healthier. That's one of the reasons expected lifespans are pushing 80 years, rather then 30 or so in the Middle Ages. Trying to survive on just one or two crops and the occasional glass of milk or cheese isn't good for you. Increased food availability leads to being healthier.
But, it can definitely go too far. Plenty of Americans (and others, but, sadly, mostly Americans) have taken the widespread availability of food and ran with it and are now facing health problems from eating way too much.
Variety is good. But when you start to go for efficiency over health you cross the line. Which is why i hate GMO's very few studies have been done on their effect on the enviroment and on people. Just look up starlink corn and what happened there.
Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.
What is the "actual" sense, though?
All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".
Grakmar wrote: Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.
What is the "actual" sense, though?
All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".
"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).
And, all food is 100% natural. Natural means existing in nature. Man is a product of nature, therefor anything we create is also a product of nature. A computer monitor is just as natural as a bird's nest or a beaver dam. The only things that aren't 100% natural are things that don't exist.
Edit: Granted, that's not what non-technical people mean when they use those words, but it's what those words actually mean.
Grakmar wrote:
Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.
What is the "actual" sense, though?
All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".
"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).
Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard.
Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food)
Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml
Grakmar wrote: "Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).
Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard. Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food) Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml
It's not ignorant, it's what those words actually mean. The food industry (and their marketing departments) have taken them and used them as buzz-words in a new definition.
Yes, the USDA has put limits on what can be called "Organic" or "Natural". Their definitions aren't really accurate, but they have done a good job of making sure these words don't become pure marketing terms and can actually give some information to the average consumer (who doesn't really know what those words mean).
Editing to add: I'm not complaining (well, maybe a little. I'm not a fan of people taking words that mean something to a scientist and modifying them to mean something entirely different. See: Theory) about the Food Industry using those words to mean something they don't. I was just clarifying in what sense I was using the word "Organic" and then dogma asked me to expand.
Grakmar wrote: Agreed. "Organic" (using the word in the food industry sense, not in the actual sense) substances are not necessarily healthy. There are plenty of organic substances that are outright deadly (Nightshade and Arsenic are organic), and even organic foods are not healthier (they result in a very large chance of e.coli). But, they are typically fresher, and taste better.
What is the "actual" sense, though?
All food is mostly organic, its simply isn't all "natural".
"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).
Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard. Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food) Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml
Ignorant? He's talking about, you know chemistry. Everything you're talking about is made up nonsense. Everything's natural or comes from nature. Organic is just a fancy name of saying you don't want pesticides and are scared of GM food, even though all our food is genetically modified. Also some nuttiness about local growth or "fair trade."
Now you want a category of food that is produced without pesticides, cool and bro fist. Call it that, but don't get high and mighty when the term is bull gak.
You tell me how to define a fruit that distinguishes it from a vegetable and I'll defer. But the USDA considers cucumbers, zucchini, eggplants, peppers, peas, and tomatoes vegetables, so I'm going to go with that. But yes, they could also be fruits.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.
Nope, I don't, because genetically modified food, or even plain old non-organic food, isn't bad for you.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also Many countries seem to do fine with organic only.
Are you defining organic to only refer to non-genetically modified food? Because there's a lot of farming practices in Mexico that would qualify as "not-organic," like the use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And besides. if proper organic practices where followed we could.
There once was a time when we followed "proper organic practices." We didn't have enough food to feed 7 billion people. Most families struggled to feed their own families on a few acres of land.
Know why we have such a surplus of food available now? Fertilizers, pesticides, and manipulating the genetic structure of food.
You can advocate for organic farming all you want, but realize that you're arguing for mass starvation and against scientific advancement.
Now you want a category of food that is produced without pesticides, cool and bro fist. Call it that, but don't get high and mighty when the term is bull gak.
I generally make it a policy not to argue with you because you seam reasonable or because you might sick a dog on me. But i disagree. Organic is a real definition of food as in natural.
Also GMO are not natural in the sense that yes we breed corn to make red corn, therefor they are GM. But that occurs(or could occur) in nature. Cross breeding a tomatoe and a flounder doesnt.
Also its not the GMOs themselves it hate. i hate corporations that try to hide it from us so we dont know what we are buying or eating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.
Nope, I don't, because genetically modified food, or even plain old non-organic food, isn't bad for you.
Isnt bad for you.
Here read this. Even thought it wasnt fit for human consumption, it still found its way into farms because surprise surprise. seeds travel.
http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn.html
The big problem I have with the pro-Organic crowd is Genetic Modification is not inherently wrong, nor does it necessarily result in unhealthy foods.
Humans have been genetically modifying things for longer than we've had civilization. The non-modified horse didn't have a back strong enough to support a human, but we genetically modified it (by selective breeding) to the point where it can support a lot of weight. The non-modified corn plant provides effectively zero food. But, thanks to genetic modification, we produced a plant that could feed people. Here's a picture, the original is on the left, the modern is on the right:
There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.
Nope, I don't, because genetically modified food, or even plain old non-organic food, isn't bad for you.
Isnt bad for you.
Here read this. Even thought it wasnt fit for human consumption, it still found its way into farms because surprise surprise. seeds travel.
http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn.html
Right, isn't bad for you.
From the link (broken up to show the point):
The EPA Scientific Advisory panel considered the protein Cry9C a medium risk potential human allergen....Since the Cry9C protein is only a small fraction of corn protein, the probability that the protein would sensitize an individual is low.
The FDA received approximately 34 reports of adverse reaction to corn products which may contain StarLink. Of the 34 reports, 20 were very unlikely a result of an allergenic reaction. The U.S. Center investigated 7 people who experienced symptoms that are consistent with an allergenic reaction. The people showed no reaction to the Cry9C protein
...
[N]ew information demonstrated the consumption of corn based foods that contain StarLink would expose consumers to Cry9C many times smaller than needed to cause sensitivity.
I'm not sure why Aventis withdrew their StarCorn, from the link, it sounds like there were no problems with it and very low risk of problems.
Unless you were providing the link to show that the EPA is a useless agency that is limiting the development, commercialization, and efficient production of food. Then I'd probably agree with you.
There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.
I agree, Like i said. I have no problem with GMO's I have problems with how little people care(in america) of what they may be putting in their body.) So little testing is done. But companies got around to make testing so careless so they could get them to market fast.
Also,
if their plant makes in onto your field by way of wind(remember how seeds travel) they can and do sue you for patent infringment.
Also in canada it a plant cross pollinates with a GMO plant the companies will own both.
Also a complete loss of bio-diversity is also a big problem.
Grakmar wrote:The big problem I have with the pro-Organic crowd is Genetic Modification is not inherently wrong, nor does it necessarily result in unhealthy foods.
Humans have been genetically modifying things for longer than we've had civilization. The non-modified horse didn't have a back strong enough to support a human, but we genetically modified it (by selective breeding) to the point where it can support a lot of weight. The non-modified corn plant provides effectively zero food. But, thanks to genetic modification, we produced a plant that could feed people. Here's a picture, the original is on the left, the modern is on the right:
There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.
EXACTLY. However it leaves off the ultimate modified corn item - hot buttered popcorn!!!!!
Grakmar wrote:
There are plenty of additions that should be avoided (DDT is a great example), and genetic modifications that result in unhealthy foods (some of the hormone additions to cows are rather questionable). But, that just means we need to be more careful and properly test things before we make them widespread. It doesn't mean that we should go back in time to a point when we only eat things that humans didn't have a hand in.
I agree, Like i said. I have no problem with GMO's I have problems with how little people care(in america) of what they may be putting in their body.) So little testing is done. But companies got around to make testing so careless so they could get them to market fast.
I... agree! Mark this day on your calender, Dakka! The OT forum had an argument that was well-informed, well-argued, and actually resulted in both parties agreeing to some middle ground!
hotsauceman1 wrote:Also a complete loss of bio-diversity is also a big problem.
Absolutely. The Irish Potato Famine is a great example. Irish farmers were almost entirely growing a single variety of potato (because it was the best) with little alternate potatoes. When a fungus came along that attacked that strain of potatoes, it wiped out an incredibly large percentage of the food. If there had been more diversity in the Irish crops (both in terms of the variety of potatoes and including other non-potato crops), the famine would have been avoided.
Putting all our eggs in just a few baskets is a bad idea.
AustonT wrote:My disagreement is not in the nutritional value, it's how awful I think it is.
That's certainly a reasonable opinion, and I didn't say that I thought processed meat wasn't awful, just that how it is made has little to no bearing on how nutritious it is. And, in case it needs to be said, I'm not of the opinion that what the staffer in the article did was necessarily a good thing. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, there could have been extenuating circumstances that made the action seem less stupid, but that information is not in the article.
biccat wrote:What a child will or will not eat certainly affects the nutritional value that they receive from lunch. If the objective of the school lunch screening program is to ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school (rather than just serving the right food), then they should definitely consider what the kids will or will not eat. Particularly if the decision is between the child eating a marginally healthy lunch and not eating a fully healthy lunch. Your argument is one of form over substance.
I'd say my argument is one of realism, but suit yourself. And to address something you said, it's impossible to have the school lunch program ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school, because they cannot force children to eat. The best they can accomplish is to serve nutritious food. Given that the school is, at least in part, responsible for the welfare of the children in attendance, some form of monitoring of their diet while at school is a good idea. I also think it is a good idea to monitor the behavior of students for signs of abuse, as well. Shadowseer_Kim provided a better procedure for the diet monitoring than what seems to be going on in the article, but I'm in favor the "observe and report" policy rather than a direct action one (at least in part because direct action relies on the official acting to make a decision based on partial information and a likely emotionally charged viewpoint - which leads to bad decisions often).
I have a question for the advocates of "organic food". What, to you, does "organic" or "natural" food mean to you? I'm guessing it means non-genetically modified, pesticide free food?
IcyCool wrote:I'd say my argument is one of realism, but suit yourself. And to address something you said, it's impossible to have the school lunch program ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school, because they cannot force children to eat.
Actually, they can. It's not a pretty solution, but the school certainly could force the kid to eat. There are lots of things that the state forces us to do. Eating would be no different.
IcyCool wrote:The best they can accomplish is to serve nutritious food. Given that the school is, at least in part, responsible for the welfare of the children in attendance, some form of monitoring of their diet while at school is a good idea.
So in my example above, you would rather a kid not eat a healthy meal than eat a marginally healthy meal? How do you justify this as nutritionally advantageous?
IcyCool wrote:I also think it is a good idea to monitor the behavior of students for signs of abuse, as well. Shadowseer_Kim provided a better procedure for the diet monitoring than what seems to be going on in the article, but I'm in favor the "observe and report" policy rather than a direct action one (at least in part because direct action relies on the official acting to make a decision based on partial information and a likely emotionally charged viewpoint - which leads to bad decisions often).
Report to who? And for what reason? Should a fat kid be taken away from his parents?
I'll admit that the problem of child abuse is a tricky situation that has to balance the rights of individuals from overzealous government scrutiny against the interest of the child in not being abused, but you seem to tip more heavily towards scrutiny.
biccat wrote:Actually, they can. It's not a pretty solution, but the school certainly could force the kid to eat. There are lots of things that the state forces us to do. Eating would be no different.
Well, sure, but it wouldn't be legal (at least, by the current laws of the various states today). Again, I'm coming from a realistic standpoint, not some strange absurdity where school officials are allowed and expected to hold children down and force feed them.
biccat wrote:So in my example above, you would rather a kid not eat a healthy meal than eat a marginally healthy meal? How do you justify this as nutritionally advantageous?
Refusing to eat has very little to do with whether or not the meal they are served has a good nutritional value. Obviously, enticing children to eat a nutritious meal by making it taste good is an avenue that should be pursued.
I'm a bit unclear as to where your argument is headed. Rather than poke about in the dark as we go back and forth for several pages, let's try and get at the "meat" of the issue. I'm saying that a school is responsible for serving healthy food, because they are, at least in part, responsible for the health and well being of the students in their care. You seem to be of the opinion that the school should instead serve the children whatever they like, because eating a full meal (whether it is healthy for you or not), is better than eating a partial meal.
I mean, if your ultimate point here is that you think that schools shouldn't provide the children in their care healthy meals when the parents of those children provide unhealthy meals, then why not drive straight at that point? It is, at the very least, more defensible (and, at least in part, reasonable) than your current argument of "lots of bad food is better than a little good food".
biccat wrote:Report to who? And for what reason? Should a fat kid be taken away from his parents?
I guess I should ask you this: If a parent serves their child nothing but soda and twinkies, do you think that constitutes abuse or neglect for that child's well being?
I'm assuming you do, provided that such a "meal plan" is a very common, very regular thing in that child's diet. In other words, if that is all the child gets to eat for say, a year, that would be bad. But a treat like that once in a while is perfectly reasonable. I don't have a magic number on how many meals of this nature in a given time period indicates neglect, but I'd rather such things were observed and documented than completely ignored or acted upon rashly.
biccat wrote:I'll admit that the problem of child abuse is a tricky situation that has to balance the rights of individuals from overzealous government scrutiny against the interest of the child in not being abused, but you seem to tip more heavily towards scrutiny.
Yes, its tricky, and yes, I lean heavily towards scrutiny (the other end of the scale being action). I would much prefer that a child be taken away from their parents because of a solid case of abuse based on evidence than because of a knee-jerk reaction by a school staffer who let a tiny amount of power go to their head. As you noted, however, its tricky in abuse cases to determine the truth of what is going on quickly enough to prevent further harm to the abused.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Wow, that is the most willfully ingnorant thing i have ever heard.
Organic food is an official name for food that is made naturally. as in without artificial(as in made in labs and not existing naturally in the food)
Or idea of "Organic" and "Natural" are right unless they are pertaining to food. in which they take up a different definition
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml
So... I live, work, eat, and breathe in the US Agricultural industry. When 'organic' goes into my left ear, what actually reaches my brain is 'food that was grown in poop with bugs'.
I'm serious. If you want a quick litmus test, go to your grocery store and put an 'organic' tomato next to a 'normal' tomato. The 'normal' tomato is just better looking; it's bigger, more vibrant, and has fewer visible flaws. This is the reason that organic produce is often kept separate from non-organic produce; because it looks terrible in comparison.
'Organic' produce still needs potassium, nitrates and phosphates. Non-organic fertilizer incorporates this stuff from potash and ammonia, which is basically dug out of the ground as byproducts of nat gas production. 'Organic' fertilizer, however, is basically limited to animal poop.
The catch-22 with 'organic' produce is that you actually need far more livestock production, cattle specifically, in order to generate the homongous amount of poop needed to fuel production. This in turn requires a massive amount of pastureland, which directly competes with cropland for space.
As a result, organic production is one of the most intensive forms of ag on the scale needed to feed everybody. Since organic yields are materially lower than inorganic, you need to convert more cropland from pasture, and clear more forest to create pasture. It's also more labor intensive so you need more people to go become farmers (which is the opposite of the current trend btw). Net result is you have less food that costs a whole gakload more. The poor get hit the hardest, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:Absolutely. The Irish Potato Famine is a great example.
The Irish Potato Famine is a terrible example because it was institutionalized famine.
The 80% of the population that was Irish Catholic was beholden to landlords largely living in England and exacting oppressive rent and duties that ensured longterm, crippling poverty. Ireland was producing enough food/revenue to feed its own through this whole period, but was forced to give it up to fuel England's prosperity.
That's why these people were growing potatoes in the first place; it was a 'spammable' crop. The potato blight was simply tne nail in the coffin prompting significant societal, structural change, emigration in particular.
No absent, battery or IVs they school couldn't literally force the kid to eat. of course if they tried the parents would own the school shortly thereafter.
The Irish Potato Famine happened because of monocultured crops. It wasn't "institutionalized" so much as it was an example of "ignorance on a national level having devastating results".
IF I ever have kids I will have to home school, or send them to a Montessori or similar school. No way would I let these people try and "raise" my kids better than me
To clear things up, I am not in favour of schools having someone dictating what children can or can not eat, or really even severely monitor it.
Schools in general seem to think they are a township to themselves seperate from the existing laws and procedures of the outside world, and that they can do whatever they please.
2 incidents happened recently, one where one boy was beaten and sexually assaulted by 3 other boys in the shower. What did the school do? Report the incident to the police? Nope. They sat the children down in the same room together, conducted a "investigation" internally, basically asked the boys to shake hands and apologize, then gave the 3 boys who committed a serious crime a few days suspension.
Another incident happened where a young girl, 11 I beleive was attacked by a few other girls who were ages 12 and 13 while standing at her locker. They all punched her multiple times, and there was a teacher who witnessed it. Did the school call the police to report that an assault had occurred? Nope. Once again the school did an "investigation" internally, and gave the girls who committed a serious crime of assault a few days suspension.
Most people working in a school have no authority or experience in matters of law, law enforcement, and regarding the subject of this thread nutrition either.
The majority of gym teachers are not experts in the fitness field, but are average teachers who took on the extra work of also doing gym. In my highschool it was an english and a math instructor.
Yes there is a problem with the schools excerting too much control over our children. The system has taken a stance that it is better at raising children than the parents time and time again.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
2 incidents happened recently, one where one boy was beaten and sexually assaulted by 3 other boys in the shower. What did the school do? Report the incident to the police? Nope. They sat the children down in the same room together, conducted a "investigation" internally, basically asked the boys to shake hands and apologize, then gave the 3 boys who committed a serious crime a few days suspension.
Another incident happened where a young girl, 11 I beleive was attacked by a few other girls who were ages 12 and 13 while standing at her locker. They all punched her multiple times, and there was a teacher who witnessed it. Did the school call the police to report that an assault had occurred? Nope. Once again the school did an "investigation" internally, and gave the girls who committed a serious crime of assault a few days suspension.
Then the state should make the schools report all such matters to the police. Your government is elected and it is their job to ensure that public services are well run.
Melissia wrote:The Irish Potato Famine happened because of monocultured crops. It wasn't "institutionalized" so much as it was an example of "ignorance on a national level having devastating results".
Actually sourclams gave very accurate description of the deeper causes to the issue which are historical facts. Unless the "ignorance" you are referring to is a stand in for "racism" and the national level is England as the clear dominant and repressive political entity in the very fractured "United" Kingdom.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There a pretty good reason the most rabid classical liberals were Irish.
IcyCool wrote:I'm a bit unclear as to where your argument is headed. Rather than poke about in the dark as we go back and forth for several pages, let's try and get at the "meat" of the issue. I'm saying that a school is responsible for serving healthy food, because they are, at least in part, responsible for the health and well being of the students in their care. You seem to be of the opinion that the school should instead serve the children whatever they like, because eating a full meal (whether it is healthy for you or not), is better than eating a partial meal.
I'm saying that the school's objective (if schools are responsible for a child's nutrition) should not be to serve healthy food, but rather for the kids to have proper nutrition. Serving food that the kids don't eat is no better than serving nothing at all. I'm not sure how you can get any more "realist" than that.
IcyCool wrote:I mean, if your ultimate point here is that you think that schools shouldn't provide the children in their care healthy meals when the parents of those children provide unhealthy meals, then why not drive straight at that point? It is, at the very least, more defensible (and, at least in part, reasonable) than your current argument of "lots of bad food is better than a little good food".
Well, my personal position is that schools don't have the authority to override a parent's wishes - whether that's dietary, religious, or otherwise - unless the parent's activity rises to the level of abuse.
But that's not the point I'm making here. The point I'm making is that when schools serve unpalatable meals they're not advancing the goals of improving children's nutrition.
If your position is that all a school needs to do is serve a healthy meal (and deny the child the home packed meal) but that the school has no obligation to ensure that the child has proper nutrition, then you're impinging on parental authority without any actual benefit.
IcyCool wrote:I guess I should ask you this: If a parent serves their child nothing but soda and twinkies, do you think that constitutes abuse or neglect for that child's well being?
I don't think that this activity rises to the level of abuse.
If a parent serves their child nothing but soda and twinkies for lunch, do you think the kid should be taken away from the parents? Because that's the case you're making - that by not serving the child what the school thinks they should eat, the parent is being abusive.
DIDM wrote:IF I ever have kids I will have to home school, or send them to a Montessori or similar school. No way would I let these people try and "raise" my kids better than me
Now see. What this school is trying to do is(along their lines of thinking atleast) protect kids from bad parenting. parents who just dont care and stuff a can of coke chips and a twinkie for them.
Melissia wrote:The Irish Potato Famine happened because of monocultured crops. It wasn't "institutionalized" so much as it was an example of "ignorance on a national level having devastating results".
Actually sourclams gave very accurate description of the deeper causes to the issue which are historical facts. Unless the "ignorance" you are referring to is a stand in for "racism" and the national level is England as the clear dominant and repressive political entity in the very fractured "United" Kingdom.
No, I was using "ignorance" to indicate "ignorance of genetics and how disease effects monoculured plants", where a properly organized and educated society would have planted more than just a single highly vulnerable crop.
It's a common problem in the agg industry throughout history... monocultures are genetically identical, which means that if a disease/fungus/etc hits one plant it'll hit the entire batch. Apples have the same problems whenever they'e trying to just grow one type of apple (most apple varieties are bitter and they mostly want to sell the sweet ones).
edit: I'm not trying to undercut the racism inherent in the system, as it were, but it's very much true that people were ignorant of this during the ~1800s.
The North Carolina Pre-Kindergarten is a state-run enrichment program to help 4-year-olds at risk of starting school lagging behind their peers. Ninety percent of the children qualify for free or reduced lunch.
The program has 1,100 sites serving 25,000 children and is required to supply a healthful lunch. The U.S. Agriculture Department defines that as a serving of milk, two servings of fruits or vegetables, one serving of grain, and one serving of meat or protein.
They also have apologized to the parents for the misunderstanding.
Grakmar wrote:
"Organic" actually means that the molecule is made up of a string of Carbon atoms (that's why Organic Chemistry is all about C molecules). So, things like plastic (polyethylene is -CH2-CH2- repeating) are organic, whereas things like water (H2O, notice the lack of C) are inorganic. So, food is mostly inorganic (it contains a lot of water).
Yes, I took high school AP Chem, I know this.
I should have been more specific (I apologize, I had been woken up to finish someone else's work.) in that I was thinking politically, and no empirically.
I agree with you.
Grakmar wrote:
And, all food is 100% natural. Natural means existing in nature. Man is a product of nature, therefor anything we create is also a product of nature.
We agree, and because I make that argument all the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Now I see why most people in a America are overweight. Because they think chicken nuggets are HEALTHY!....
You know that "healthy" really only means "things I can consume often" right?
And even then, you could eat chicken nuggets everyday so long as you understand what they are.
Its understanding, and access to variety, that cause problems.
Melissia wrote:The Irish Potato Famine happened because of monocultured crops. It wasn't "institutionalized" so much as it was an example of "ignorance on a national level having devastating results".
Actually sourclams gave very accurate description of the deeper causes to the issue which are historical facts. Unless the "ignorance" you are referring to is a stand in for "racism" and the national level is England as the clear dominant and repressive political entity in the very fractured "United" Kingdom.
No, I was using "ignorance" to indicate "ignorance of genetics and how disease effects monoculured plants", where a properly organized and educated society would have planted more than just a single highly vulnerable crop.
It's a common problem in the agg industry throughout history... monocultures are genetically identical, which means that if a disease/fungus/etc hits one plant it'll hit the entire batch. Apples have the same problems whenever they'e trying to just grow one type of apple (most apple varieties are bitter and they mostly want to sell the sweet ones).
edit: I'm not trying to undercut the racism inherent in the system, as it were, but it's very much true that people were ignorant of this during the ~1800s.
I think both sides can come to some clear middle ground:
1) The direct cause of the Irish Potato Famine was that the vast majority of Irish farmers were relying on the same potato plant to feed them. When a fungus appeared that attacked this potato plant, the majority of the country's crops were destroyed and widespread starvation occurred.
2) The reason why the majority of crops were the same potato plant was because the Irish farmer was in a terrible spot, economically, in a large part due to English landholders exacting a crippling demand on them, and they were forced to grow the one crop that could support their family on the small plot of land they were allotted.
3) In retrospect, this entire terrible episode should have been avoided, and could have easily been avoided had the Irish farmer diversified crops more. But to do this, he would have needed more economic freedom from the landholders.
Melissia wrote:Also the fact that the UK still demanded exports from Ireland during the second famine shouldn't be discounted.
Yes, hence "institutionalized famine". Ireland was producing enough revenue/GDP through every year but the last most dire ones to feed itself, it was simply being extorted away by the structure of governance.
Blaming 'monoculture' for the Irish famine is like blaming "the dice" when your out-of-cover Terminator dies to 3 DE Ravagers.
And how 'monoculture' somehow becomes an argument against modern agricultural commercial practices, I have no idea. We don't have monoculture today. Modern producers employ crop rotations based on sophisticated systems including soil analysis, yield projections, break-even analysis, weather forecasting and old fashioned common sense. Last year represented a severe drought (not sure how severe historically, but certainly worst in 20 years) and US corn yields are still expected to top 12.5 billion bushels.
Barnes confirmed there was an agent from Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education at the school Jan. 30 who examined six student lunches and determined one did not make the nutritional cut — presumably the first little girl whose story made news.
An...agent? An unknown agent, veritably a secret agent....
Without getting into some of the glaringly wrong things being said in this thread about food and nutrition I just want to express bewilderment at national outrage over a preschooler eating chicken nuggets instead of a sammich.
Also, if I had made a list of things that would end up being discussed in this thread before I read it I don't think that the Irish Potato Famine would have been in the top 6,000 items.
biccat wrote:I'm saying that the school's objective (if schools are responsible for a child's nutrition) should not be to serve healthy food, but rather for the kids to have proper nutrition. Serving food that the kids don't eat is no better than serving nothing at all.
Perhaps I didn't make my viewpoint clear, but I do not think that your position is a realistic one at all. I've come to this opinion, because I cannot currently conceive of a way that the school can force a student to eat, at least from a legal standpoint. Given that limitation, I do think the best they can shoot for is to offer healthy food. Obviously, the goal would be for the students to actually eat the healthy food, but how do you ensure that?
Do you have a viable solution to that problem biccat? I'm genuinely curious. If you did, I could certainly see how you came to your conclusion, but currently I'm at an impasse here. Keep in mind that I already mentioned that making the healthy food as tasty and enticing as possible is obvious, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the student choosing not to eat it.
biccat wrote:Well, my personal position is that schools don't have the authority to override a parent's wishes - whether that's dietary, religious, or otherwise - unless the parent's activity rises to the level of abuse.
I agree completely with you here.
biccat wrote:But that's not the point I'm making here. The point I'm making is that when schools serve unpalatable meals they're not advancing the goals of improving children's nutrition.
If your position is that all a school needs to do is serve a healthy meal (and deny the child the home packed meal) but that the school has no obligation to ensure that the child has proper nutrition, then you're impinging on parental authority without any actual benefit.
To a certain extent, yes. I've mentioned before that I prefer the "observe and report" concept. I'm less comfortable with the "take away unhealthy food" approach, but I'm not sure what else the school can do. As I see it, the best the school can do, as far as I understand, to ensure proper nutrition is to offer nutritious food, educate the students on proper nutrition, and monitor food consumption to provide data for determining if a child is being harmed by a parent's neglect.
biccat wrote:I don't think that this activity rises to the level of abuse.
If a parent serves their child nothing but soda and twinkies for lunch, do you think the kid should be taken away from the parents? Because that's the case you're making - that by not serving the child what the school thinks they should eat, the parent is being abusive.
As I said earlier, I think such information and behavior should be noted. If this body of evidence is found to be a record of abusive behavior, then removal of the child may be necessary. Obviously, if the occasional unhealthy meal is the only sign of neglect during the student's time at the school, that's hardly a basis for making a case of abuse against the parent. But having that information is an important part of being able to make a good, informed decision. I don't know how detrimental to your child's health routinely feeding them unhealthy food is. It's probably not anywhere near enough to qualify as abuse bad enough to have the child removed. But that sort of neglect, coupled with little Jimmy coming to school with a few oddly placed bruises on more than one occasion does build a strong pattern of behavior against the parent.
