Put Down That Turkey Sammich Little Girl.....

Our school did the same thing more or less, but it wasn't tickets, it was a card like a credit card almost, and there were several different 'stores' (not really sure what to call them, one was just whatever they happened to make that day, one was where you would get your hamburger/fries, one was salad and one was pizza) all these stores still stocked all the junk food that vending machines would and the free/reduced lunch programs still allowed you to buy junk food.

None of the food was any good though, except the nacho jalapeno cheese. I'd buy one little thing of that, and a bag of chili cheese fritos and a drink, pour the cheese on the fritos and that was my lunch.. That's if I even felt like eating. I grew up pretty much my entire life eating once a day, with a bowl of cereal for breakfast every other day or so..

The kids on free lunch brought money to school to buy junk food. The free lunch thing was flagged on their account if they wanted school lunch. We had technologies. :3

People make less than optimal decisions with their lives all the time, this is nothing new, nor is it anything that I would really call awful. At some point you just have to deal with it and let go of the urge to tell them what to do. I think its tragic when bad parents make irresponsible decisions in how they raise their kids, but they are still their kids, and they still have the right to raise them however they want. I mean if someone is putting their children's lives in danger or sexually molesting them, then obviously someone should intervene. But having a fat kid or even one who's obese is hardly "abuse".

Also if you don't like what your school is serving you child for lunch, you should pack them their own and they should you know.... eat it.

As for people who abuse food in general, maybe we should stop offering them a free ride? Maybe we should tolerate their lifestyle, and let them exercise their individual freedom to remain obese. Maybe we should insist that they hold themselves responsible and accountable. But unfortunately I fear that makes to much sense for some to grasp.

If a kid gets sexually assaulted by their parent or beaten severely we should step in... why?

Under your logic we should just give up because that kid belongs to the parent and therefore is subject to the parents rules. If they happen to be born to sexual deviants that's the kids problem and not ours. Sucks to be born I guess, maybe they should have picked a different vagina to exit from?

We do something about abusive homes because it becomes societies problem down the line when that child becomes a threat to other people and because we have compassion for our fellow human beings and especially those who haven't even fully developed yet. If an adult wants to make crappy decisions that is their prerogative but a child deserves to get the chance to at least make it to adulthood. With obesity and diabetes there are good odds you won't make it to adulthood in proper shape.

When nearly 1/3 of US children and adolescents are obese it has become our responsibility. Children do not deserve to suffer for their parents decisions and with our knowledge we'd be foolish to not attempt preventing a entire generation from becoming compromised adults. You won't save everyone but that isn't the goal it's to bring awareness, arm people with knowledge and throw resources at a growing problem before it spirals out of control.

Hold people accountable? You want to leave kids to the devices of their parents and then punish them when they weren't armed with the relevant knowledge to make informed decisions? What punishment do you suggest?

Can't afford to pay for diabetic medication? Sucks for you, enjoy diabetic shock. Maybe next time you'll be born to parents who make better decisions, feed you and instill habits that don't lead to disease.

Being diabetic because your parents didn't give a ***is quite different than being sexually molested, or placed in mortal physical harm. It is neither a crime to eat twinkies or drink soda, however it is a crime to molest children and physically place them in harm. Is the line clear yet? or should I try harder?

We disagree fundamentally. It's not my, your, or the collective our job to force people to be healthy or to raise their kids the way we want them too. It is a decision every individual must make on their own. Your health is your responsibility, and your kid's health is both theirs and your responsibility. Relying on anyone else is unrealistic, you're likely to get some jerk-wad who confiscates a perfectly good turkey sandwich and replaces it with chicken nuggets.

I don't, the government does.


+ what several others said.

no it's the responsibility of a society as a whole to make sure the future generation is healthy and educated.

and they didn't confiscate anything...you apparently didn't really read your own article...

Again we just disagree, you want the government to have more control over what I feed my kids, and I simply don't.

Tbh, I'd rather have my money go to kids who born into an actual ***hole; those who are starving and drink filthy water, not kids who are too fat because their parents feed them cookies.

This country has enough resources, knowledge, and wealth for parents to make proper meal choices for their children. I understand that it's important to have compassion for other people in society, but there has to be a point where you draw the line; at some point it becomes a lost cause.

It's not that simple, and it's not personal.

People fail to parent properly all the time, the government has to step in at some point to prevent the problem from getting worse, it has long since passed that point.

There's nothing wrong with the policy they have, at all, it's not saying what you claim it's doing.

If you want to control your child that much don't send them to public school then they won't have any say, but if you're feeding them to the point of malnutrition you should be reported to child services as that is abuse. (not you personally, in general).

edit: also I don't want them to have more control, I just don't have an issue with the control they do have.

What about other forms of negligence? Say I'm a Christian Scientist and refuse to give my child medicine. It's my right, isn't it?

part of the problem:
a) parents are uneducated
b) parents are busy working 2 or 3 jobs each and don't have monitor what the kids take to school
c) healthy food is more expensive

its not just parents who could feed them better food feeding them better food.

mcdonalds isnt only unhealthy, its cheap.

I hope I don't need to go here.

so true
and don't get me wrong I won't eat salad and I love my meaty steak, but I'm an adult and that's my choice. I should eat more fruit as I love apples.

A preschooler can't make that decision, and most parents are too incompetent to make that decision for their children.

Not to mention that people are living longer than ever and in the past people died before it became an issue (or because of the issue).

that and tech advances.

There's a problem with this.. Not everyone has the free time to homeschool their kids, nor the money to pay for private instructors or private school. I dunno if it's the same everywhere, but you can go to jail for not giving them schooling here (which I'm not against that, education is needed, period) but for those without the time or money for homeschooling don't really have any options. Just because they can't afford (money or time) to keep them out of public school doesn't mean they should lose the right to say what their child can or cannot have.

If I don't want my kid eating the crap they throw together at school, and want him eating healthy, and send him with his own lunch, that's my right as a parent to do. If my kid is healthy and I put a *** twinkie in his lunch, that's also my damn right.

Until there's a child who is morbidly obese, and his lunch includes lard and fatback, I don't see it as the right of the government to say what they can or cannot eat. A blanket policy simply isn't the way to fix the weight problem. Actually there are very few things where a blanket policy is even mildly acceptable OR effective.

Lazy, uncaring parents may have caused this problem, or contributed to it, but lazy government and policies aren't going to fix it.

actually yeah it does. If you use the government's system you kinda can't *** about the policies. (you can but there's no point).

you can pack what you want but if the school deems it unhealthy for that age group they'll supplement it as required.

as for your last paragraph, there isn't much of a difference.

the FDA can tell people: especially minors to do what they want.

well I'm out, have fun.

Please elaborate, I'm really hoping you're not saying there's not a difference between a healthy kid eating a twinkie and a morbidly obese child eating fatback and lard.

Obviously dessert is illegal.

'

There is a solution to the problem. Better food equality (better food quality at better prices), better support for struggling families, better education for parents and children alike.

It is an undeniable fact that poverty drags down families. Poverty doesn't just mean families that have less, poverty means it makes it much more difficult (but not impossible) for families to escape poverty.

Families working two to three jobs each parent aren't lazy if they simply don't have time to check and make sure their 10 year old isnt bringing candy to school for lunch.

Most places the government requires you to enroll your kids into school. So the bold argument is very much flawed.

The FDA's job is to make sure that food and drugs that are sold are safe. Their job is not to make minors do what they want.

Give up before we've even tried? As it stands this country hasn't addressed the issue of childhood in a bipartisan fashion so why would we raise the surrender flag so soon?

It also goes beyond mere compassion though I find it reason enough to take this issue head on. More sick people means more strain on the healthcare system which means that guess what? Healthy people end up paying for those who get sick, default on the bills and the hospitals spread it across to everyone else.

It's why I think Nausi's argument was flawed. He wants to basically throw up his hands and tell people who grew up with the wrong set of parents that they are screwed while giving them no options to make proper decisions. Further, we're then to turn around and hold accountable those who weren't probably armed with knowledge in the first place? It's callous to say the least.

Better to tackle the problem before it becomes all of our problems. I'll repeat that 16-33% of children are currently obese. Lost cause? Save that till both parties in this country attempt to do something besides leave it up to the dice roll parents can often be.

Dude, when are you gonna realize, you cannot lose the weight for them. With the exception of a very tiny portion of people who have genetic abnormalities, being fat is a SIMPLE equation. Simple enough that little kids get it. To much input or not enough output = weight gain. You can spend billions offering healthy choices, and marketing the dangers of excess. But in the end if people want to be fat, they will be fat.

How much more money do we need to waste, on stuff that clearly doesn't work?

And when will you realize this isn't a fatalistic situation in the US? Not enough education + low income + poor diet = obesity epidemic.

Increase the education, give kids healthier options than we have today and you're well on your way to giving people much better odds of becoming healthy adults. Key words: much. better. odds.

Kids don't have a choice what they eat and so the responsibility falls on us to give them at the least - healthy choices in school. At home? The parents are free to assist the school or reject it entirely.

Further, kids can often force parents into buying things that they'd otherwise skip over and that's how you make changes. A child might find out that broccoli isn't that bad, that oranges are actually sweet or that beans don't only make you fart but are high in fiber and protein. Some kids may take this knowledge to heart and others may reject but guess what? That's education for you and school is supposed to arm kids with as much of it as possible. What they do with it 20 years later is their business.

Waste of money? Clearly doesn't work? Evidence?

I forgot how long ago this was, but I think it was fairly recently that school districts in this state have been pushing for gardens in elementary schools after researchers from Texas A&M started promoting the idea of "green schools". For some of our ultra-conservative friends, no, it's not some liberal agenda. The closest ones to me are in the Republican stronghold of Williamson County.

Anyway, I think this is a fantastic idea, but unfortunately, only the school districts that have a budget surplus have been able to toy with this idea so far. Not only do kids gain a nutritional understanding but they're also introduced to very fundamental biology.

Only in America does being poor make you fat.

Wait, what?

Only poor diet leads to obesity. You can educated a kid and their parents on diets all you want, but if little Johnny wants junk food, he'll find a way to get it.

Epidemic?! Like it's a disease?! LOL!

They've been teaching about the food pyramid since I was in elementary school at least, so they've been doing it since the mid 1980's.

Now it's some kind of food circle or something stupid.

Another pointless war the government wages on it's people.

Drugs
Internet / Piracy
Food
Sex

I'm sure this list has more, that's all I can think of immediately,

Economics 101, supply and demand. No wait excuse me, Elementary Economics.

Unethical business practices 101.(Subcategory)

Advanced political corruption 1009. Or Greed 101.

Do the math.

I have the capability of making mass #'s of goods, but I cannot sell because I have no market to go in.
Oh wait I can get Ted to buy in using his swing in office! I'll cut him a % and get rich and he'll hit my bandwagon and get rich with me!
Ted: Looks good lets haul this puppy up and make it official!

Under the guise of healther choice foods, that are supposedly better for you.
We'll force everyone,to help everyone!Wait wait, no no, that can't be right! Doesn't that sounds like socialism?
Or propaganda, or laundering, or no wait is that the Democratic system failing at its finest yet again?

Benefits: Farmer John gets rich, Politician Ted gets rich (and gets an open favor), School costs get cut back (potentially), food quality (potentially) diminishes but is (potentially) capable of feeding numerous children for years to come. Oh yeah and your children don't get as fat because they now control what they eat during the hours they are with us.(*Subject to liability and terms of agreement, does not include what you feed your children at home and we really don't care, until we get a new way to funnel food to you that'll benefit us with money and power to give us more of both).

Bzzt, try again.

Poor education leads to poorer decisions every time. There are parents who have no idea what the hell calories are, what causes diabetes/heart disease and just exactly how screwed you can become when your diet of Tombstone Pizzas catches up with you. Couple that in with a low income with restricts you to food that is largely unhealthy for you and we wind up with the issues we face today.

How do we prevent that? We education the youth. Much like we teach every student the basic elements of history, science and math when most students will either ignore/forget it, it's still within the realm of relevance for some group of students and a portion will benefit from it.

Obesity is an epidemic and it stems partly from a lack of education on the facts. 25%-32% of American adults are overweight and the rates of juvenile diabetes and obesity are on a steady climb yet it's not a problem?

Don't get me wrong as education isn't going to fix it all but saying it's a waste of money and that kids shouldn't be given the option to make their own choices is silly. Health shouldn't boil down to a roulette wheel where you hope your parents don't suck at feeding you.

you also have to look at what people can afford. carbs are cheap, so is a mcdonalds lunch.

edit: what im saying is unless you can get a job making a little more than your average joe, all the food education in the world isnt going to matter to those that cannot afford it.