#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should Trump ban junk food at schools in America?
YES! OF COURSE!
Side Score: 50
|
NO! What r u talking about??
Side Score: 43
|
|
If the schools are allowed to serve junk food yes it should be banned and I think this should apply to all schools worldwide as child obesity is a huge problem worldwide ; to allow a child to become obese through overeating and the eating of junk food is child abuse . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
If you think removing junk food from schools is the solution then you are woefully ignorant of the problem. You're treating the problem way too far down the line, and at the expense of individual autonomy and states' rights. The problem is the food system infrastructure itself. Federal subsidies and similar programs have culminated in the inclusion of excessive amounts of sugar and corn products in our food. Not only does this seriously limit the healthy options which exist on the market, but it ensures that the affordable products are also the unhealthy ones. When this pairs with income disparity, you get an obesity epidemic. Moreover, given the limited funding schools receive it isn't even realistic that they could budget healthy food into their meal programs since doing so would require going outside the (broken) food infrastructure model. There are a few select magnet schools that receive special funding, but as a sweeping policy it's not very feasible. Nor do I think using schools to accomplish social goals outside of education is necessarily a good thing, especially if it comes at the expense of actually doing something substantive with our policies. Pair it with limited funding for schools, and you get unhealthy diet programs; school systems simply cannot afford to provide healthy meals outside of the mainstream food infrastructure system on the budgets they have. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
I never said it was the solution I said I agreed with the removing of junk food from school menus ; it's up to parents to make sure their children eat correctly and healthily . Over here children bring their own food mostly to schools , school canteens mostly sell healthy foods which students pay for but yet their is still a huge problem with child obesity as parents feed their children too much and the wrong type of foods . Bottom line is it's up to parents whether their children are obese or not , if their obese it's child abuse plain and simple Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Removing junk food is removing an option, and the only reason you would do that is because you do not trust people to make their own choices. If it is up to the parents to make sure their children eat healthy then leave it to the parents to raise their children to make healthy food choices, not to the schools to restrict unhealthy options. It also is not simply a matter of poor parenting. As I already observed, food infrastructure and income are very significant factors. I do not remember where you are from, but I would be very surprised if the issue really reduced to something so simple as poor parenting. There isn't much to suggest that parenting would change so drastically in such a small period of time, but we do know that food policy has shifted considerably in the last century. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Removing junk food is indeed removing an option and it's an unhealthy option which you object to , why ? Yes people make choices but wrong ones as can be evidenced by the obesity problem , so correct I don't trust a lot of them to make the righ choice because they don't . Of course it's up to the schools to participate in healthy eating choices it's children's health at stake and you object , why ? Well yes it is a matter of bad parenting when I was a child everyone of my classmates were fit , heathy and mostly thin and junk food was virtually non existent over here , most everyone was sport mad we had no mobile phones , or iPads and spent a lot of time outside ; nowadays parents mostly both work and work long hours , junk food and internet surfing are the options most take as a family all wrapped up in their own little worlds . Do you not find it sadly strange where most families with a dog make sure it's fed and excecised correctly yet their kids are not afforded the same treatment ? I'm from from the Republic of Ireland where our kids are set to be amongst the unfittest and most obese in the world in a couple of years time , if you want evidence that's it is indeed bad parenting have a look at class photos of kids in the 50s, 60s, 70s and look at class photos nowadays the difference size wise is startling and why is that would you think ? People nowadays are too lazy and are well aware of the Heath implications but couldn't give a fuck either way as they blame everyone but themselves ; to let a child become obese is scandalous and is indeed abuse as children are suffering from the most appalling food related illnesses and the parents look around for someone to blame . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Removing junk food is indeed removing an option and it's an unhealthy option which you object to , why ? Because I do not think it is a legitimate exercise of federal authority to regulate state schools in the first place, let alone to do so in order to manage the personal life choices of its constituents. Yes people make choices but wrong ones as can be evidenced by the obesity problem , so correct I don't trust a lot of them to make the righ choice because they don't . & etc. I have already articulated an alternative explanation for the obesity epidemic, namely that the issue is not one of individual choice but of food infrastructure policies introduced over roughly the past century. Our food infrastructures are one more way in which (federal) governments affect the options available to their constituents, generally in a restrictive fashion (e.g. subsidies make unhealthy options the only affordable options for low income households). You have not responded except to insist that it must be that people for no evident reason whatsoever suddenly became lazy and indifferent to their well-being. You seem stuck on that narrative even though you can't begin to explain such a drastic shift in human behavioral psychology. I'm not saying individuals have no culpability at all, but I am saying that your account is very descriptively insufficient. Besides which, I simply don't get on board with the idea that people can't be unhealthy if that's what they prefer. It's their lives, not mine. You can argue that there are social costs to health care systems or the like (presuming a socialized health care system exists), but the reality is that there are also costs to micromanaging the personal choices of individuals. This is particularly the case if you're going to be consistent with your rationale and extend it beyond obesity: Do you also propose to forcibly manage what people can buy at grocery stores, how and when and what form of exercise they partake in, how much time they spend on their phones or computers or reading a book, whether or how much and what they can smoke or drink, how and when they sleep, what medications they can or must take, what surgeries they can or must have, how often they eat out versus making their own meals, what proportion of their grocery costs are allocated to fresh vegetables, etc? All of these would influence health and people don't always do the healthy thing, so by your rationale the state should step in and reduce options so people can't make bad choices. Where the hell do you stop? Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Well yes we disagree totally on point one as i think it's ridiculous to allow schools to serve junk food and it's all in the name of easy profit , and if it's personal choice by parents it's simply bad parenting . You failed to comprehend and indeed ignore what I actually said ; which was the pace of modern life and the necessity of both parents in a relationship working long hours out of necessity are major factors in driving a totally different lifestyle to past generations ( as I explained earlier ) as fast food is a viable and easy option to over worked parents . I did explain how past generations lived a more active lifestyle where fast food and the temptations of constant internet sufing were but a future dream /nightmare ... why did you fail to acknowledge this ? Also your point about people being unhealthy if that's their choice ? Ok that's fine if they're an adult and they want to destroy themselves , but is it fair to stuff an infant till it's obese ? Children are presenting at hospitals worldwide with horrendous afflictions all caused by overeating and you support this because it's a parents right to do so ? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Why is it ridiculous to allow schools to sell junk food? And what makes it easy profit exactly? Honestly, I skimmed when I should have read. The post seemed to obviously culminate in the predictable rhetoric of how lazy people nowadays are, and I didn't anticipate that you'd contradict yourself by agreeing that there are structural issues such as parents having to work more hours to make ends meet (which, incidentally, is the opposite of being lazy which was your simultaneous claim). If you agree that there are structural issues, then, why are you so certain that this is a matter of individual laziness and poor choices? I support individual choice even in the face of children being a component of the obesity epidemic, yes. Firstly because I don't trust any government with the authority to control how people parent children and think that's an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Secondly, because I don't see this as fundamentally being an error in individual parents making poor choices but in not having the opportunity to make healthy ones for their children because of structural access issues. Penalizing parents or throwing kids into government care when those programs are chronically underfunded and susceptible to the same infrastructural problems aren't viable solutions to the problem. And as I'm not the only one overlooking things, this point still needs addressed: "Do you also propose to forcibly manage what people can buy at grocery stores, how and when and what form of exercise they partake in, how much time they spend on their phones or computers or reading a book, whether or how much and what they can smoke or drink, how and when they sleep, what medications they can or must take, what surgeries they can or must have, how often they eat out versus making their own meals, what proportion of their grocery costs are allocated to fresh vegetables, etc? All of these would influence health and people don't always do the healthy thing, so by your rationale the state should step in and reduce options so people can't make bad choices. Where the hell do you stop?" Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Schools have a responsibility towards children the selling of junk food is neglecting that responsibility , are you claiming the selling of fast foods in American schools is not profitable ? It's absolutely bizzare the school model in the US regards heathy eating children in Seminole County getting sent home with report cards in Ronald Mc Donald envelopes ? Seriously is this the way to go ? 20 per cent of American schools in the US sell branded fast food and of course it's not easy profit ? It's easy to say ' predictable rhetoric ' and again avoid what I actually said which you keep ignoring , I asked you to compare the eating and lifestyle choices of past generations who did not have fast food or the internet temptations of today you completely ignore these points as you stubbornly cling to your predictable commentary which is just a refusual to look at the truth . Again you fail to recognise what I actually said when I claimed parents and children lead more sedentary lifestyles this is true as less excercise makes them lazy whether they work long hours or not . Why do you keep missing the point in so many different ways ? Individuals can smoke ,drink , and eat their way to an early death but do you honestly claim it's their god given right to inflict the same on their children and if so why ? Did you actually read what the question asked ? Its talking about schoolchildren who you seem to think can be stuffed till obese because it's a parents individual choice ? What a truly strange country and mindset where citizens make sure to feed , water and excercise dogs and horses correctly but will stuff a child till he /she is obese and it's all good because it's a parents individual choice on their child's health . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Schools have a responsibility towards children the selling of junk food is neglecting that responsibility Last I checked the responsibility of schools iseducation, not parenting. ...are you claiming that selling of fast foods in American schools is not profitable? [...] easy profit? No, I never claimed that. I asked you to elaborate on your point because it was (and remains) unclear to me. The fast food companies obviously make a profit, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that nor is there anything substantively different between them doing so at schools versus elsewhere. As for the schools, they're so chronically underfunded that entering into contracts with fast food companies has become a means to funding a better learning environment. Such trade-offs, in this case public health and education, are not unusual in public policy and they aren't inherently problematic either. It'll grant that it co-mingles with the private sector an that might not be ideal, but even that seems like an abstract and minimal cost for better education. But let's pretend I agree with you, and something about this actually is bad enough to compel action. That doesn't necessarily justify a federal ban on junk food (which includes more than just fast food). The policy still constitutes a federalist breach of Constitutionally secured states' rights, and violates individual autonomy over their own nutritional choices. It also isn't the only way to resolve the situation. The most obvious solution is to actually fund schools. Do that, and they won't need the contracts. So, again, this ban policy is shortsighted and misdirected. It doesn't see the complexity of the issue and it doesn't offer any real solutions either. Notably, childhood obesity is still an issue in the remaining 80% of schools that don't sell branded fast food. Which suggests the health implications you want to draw from fast food in schools may not be as strong as you've implied. It's easy to say ' predictable rhetoric ' [...] Again you fail to recognise what I actually said when I claimed parents and children lead more sedentary lifestyles this is true as less excercise makes them lazy whether they work long hours or not .[...] keep missing the point in so many different ways? Your original and subsequent remarks about lazy people are predictable rhetoric. They originate from a popular narrative about obesity which is not substantiated, and which dismisses offhand the basic infrastructural differences causing the epidemic. You want to argue that people working multiple jobs and/or long hours are lazy, but people forced into such positions by bad economic infrastructure are generally (and understandably) too exhausted to have active lifestyles even if their work schedule left them spare time for it. To be blunt, it's ignorant and a bit asinine to suggest that someone working an 80+ hour work week is "lazy". While it's true that there are new sedentary forms of entertainment (although, frankly, TV falls well outside the relevant generational time parameters), you haven't explained why the mere existence of these options should have translated into new individual behavior on such a widespread scale. That onus is on you. Individuals can smoke ,drink , and eat their way to an early death but do you honestly claim it's their god given right to inflict the same on their children and if so why? Did you actually read what the question asked? I did. How about you? The question doesn't mention anything about parenting or the obesity epidemic. You brought both up and I've merely responded, so if you find the discussion off topic that's at your feet. Your original justification for federal violation of state and individual autonomy was the existence of a public health concern. If that holds, then all the other instances I mentioned must also hold. That parents might neglect (not abuse) their children's nutrition is immaterial since we are discussing what schools can offer for children to choose, not what parents can do. This is not a matter of what parents feed their children, but of what schools can have as options for children to choose to eat when they are away from home. (Not that most parents are "stuffing" their children anyways; obesity is generally tied to the type of food rather than the quantity of it which is why federal subsidies of things such as corn and sugar are such a huge part of the problem.) But since you're so determined to discuss parenting, let's extend your rationale to its natural conclusions once again: Is it also valid for the federal government to prohibit parents from smoking even out of the house and away from children since their health impacts their ability to provide for their children? Can it manage the rest of their behavior for the same reason? How about managing the diet of the child, how much time they must study, when they can play and when they must sleep, etc? And if not, why not? My problem with the federal government being given this much authority is not limited to my defense of individual autonomy, which I do take and defend to radical degree (though that's nothing to do with "god" or "rights"). It is also a question of how dangerous a government becomes when you grant it that sort of power over individual choice. Beyond a mere matter of trust, there are diverse theories on parenting and not a one of them objectively demonstrated to be the superior version. Ceding parenting choices to the federal government is diminishing a diversity of parenting behavior in favor of a top-down and one size fits all approach, which is its own harm because adaptability is sacrificed even under the most benevolent (purely hypothetical) government. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Yes education is the aim and that's why schools in my country and most European countries have healthy eating programmes and children are indeed being educated in healthy eating habits ; it's a start and will take time but it's entirely worthwhile . Well yes there is something wrong with fast food companies making money in schools and doing it through selling junk food to children . There is something fundamentally wrong if the American school system relies on fast food organisations to fund their schooling , over here it was always alcoholic drink companies like Guinness who funded sporting events but now that's getting less and less as people do not want booze associated with sport ; prior to that it was always cigarette manufacturers can you think of one cigarette company who is allowed to advertise and promote events now ? Fast food companies should be treated the very same way their negative effect on societies is evident . Again you mostly ignore what I stated about the obesity epidemic , I never claimed parents were working 80 plus hours , I said they were working longer hours and yes someone who does no excercise at all is indeed lazy regarding this facet of life as the off time options chosen by a sizeable amount demonstrate . Yet again you ignore totally what I said about fast food and junk meals being the favoured option with a fair proportion of parents because they're quick and easy ; I also asked you why children of my generation ( the 60s ) were mostly thin and fit ,same in the 50's ,70's look at some family class photos from theses times and see whether I'm correct or not . The reason being was less junk food and a more active lifestyle . I think this is three times I've made these points but you totally ignore them whys that ? I would love to hear your theory regarding the epidemic seeing as mine is just a ' popular narrative ' so please tell me if it's not the easy access to cheap junk food and sedentary lifestyles what then are the ' real ' causes ? Ok , that's fair enough as a final point and of course the question itself opens up many more areas of discussion and yes if i stick to the question as asked I do disagree with you ; for me fast food is mostly dangerous and totally abused and again why not let companies selling alcohol or cigarette companies sponsor your cash short schools as you claim schools function is education not parenting ? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Yes education is the aim and that's why schools in my country and most European countries have healthy eating programmes and children are indeed being educated in healthy eating habits ; it's a start and will take time but it's entirely worthwhile. I suppose one can take any content they care to, interject it into an educational model, and call it education. But my point was that the primary function of educational institutes has not been to teach people how to develop and use their minds. I'm dubious that people need to actually be taught basic things like how to eat, but should that prove to be the case I suppose I could endorse some sort of program that helps them but not within the schools. Use or develop upon existing public health infrastructure for this sort of thing instead. I also don't agree that it will be especially worthwhile since my position is that the issue is one of infrastructural access to healthy foods, rather than people being too stupid to figure out on their own that apples are healthy and french fries aren't. Well yes there is something wrong with fast food companies making money in schools and doing it through selling junk food to children. I'm aware that you believe this, but what I have asked for is an argument. Do you have one? There is something fundamentally wrong if the American school system relies on fast food organisations to fund their schooling , over here it was always alcoholic drink companies like Guinness who funded sporting events but now that's getting less and less as people do not want booze associated with sport ; prior to that it was always cigarette manufacturers can you think of one cigarette company who is allowed to advertise and promote events now ? I don't necessarily disagree that it's a problem. What I am disagreeing with is the response you are endorsing. As I said, if we actually fund schools then they won't be forced into reliance on fast food companies. Couple that with reforms to federal food policies and not only would schools be able to afford healthier meal programs but individuals could afford healthy options too. Fast food companies should be treated the very same way their negative effect on societies is evident . This seems like another misdiagnosis of a symptom as the illness. These companies are a product of food and economic policies that make the kind of food they serve cheaper than healthier options. If that infrastructure is altered, their model won't be as successful and they'll be forced to adapt. But just saying that they're bad doesn't really get us anywhere. Again you mostly ignore what I stated about the obesity epidemic , I never claimed parents were working 80 plus hours , I said they were working longer hours and yes someone who does no excercise at all is indeed lazy regarding this facet of life as the off time options chosen by a sizeable amount demonstrate . Poverty actually has a predictive relationship toward obesity, though, whereas I've seen no evidence from yourself or anyone else that "laziness" does. It's one thing to assert these people are lazy, and another to actually prove it. Yet again you ignore totally what I said about fast food and junk meals being the favoured option with a fair proportion of parents because they're quick and easy ; I also asked you why children of my generation ( the 60s ) were mostly thin and fit ,same in the 50's ,70's look at some family class photos from theses times and see whether I'm correct or not . And yet again I will reiterate that these are arguments for my position, and explain again why this is the case. Fast food and junk food did not materialize out of thin air. They are the result of policy. Poverty makes people reliant upon the quick and easy, and also cheap, food they can get. The reason this is is now a problem when it wasn't before is because the policies and economy are fundamentally different; you're argument relies on the very strange counter-supposition that conditions have remained static while human psychology has magically defied the theory of evolution by dramatically altering in a single generation. I would love to hear your theory regarding the epidemic seeing as mine is just a ' popular narrative ' so please tell me if it's not the easy access to cheap junk food and sedentary lifestyles what then are the ' real ' causes ? Then I refer you to my preceding commentary, since I've already presented it at length and repeatedly. The short and condensed version is that federal and international food infrastructure systems compounded by economic conditions of poverty have produced the obesity epidemic, far more than individual's suddenly being too lazy and stupid to know what healthy food is. and yes if i stick to the question as asked I do disagree with you ; for me fast food is mostly dangerous and totally abused and again why not let companies selling alcohol or cigarette companies sponsor your cash short schools as you claim schools function is education not parenting? If you actually stick to the question then we are talking about breaching constitutional law through executive order to ban all junk food (not just fast food) in all schools (including private ones and higher education institutions). My response to alcohol or cigarettes companies sponsoring cash sort schools would be the same: Instead of violating the federal constitution in the name of paternalism, how about we simply fund the bloody schools? It's a simpler and far more direct solution that actually gets at the real problem, instead of just treating its symptoms. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Yes you make fair points and I go on the healthy eating model we are attempting over here because the government and schools realised we have a problem regards obesity levels in people in general . We started a nationwide programme called operation transformation where communities and schools try to stick to healthy eating and excercise programmes it seems to be getting results so we shall see . It's a bit unfair of me to attempt to use our attempts at the problem and try and apply them to the US , as I've done a bit more study on what drives the problem in the US and a lot of what you say is indeed fair and accurate , so apologies . I came across this article which I found fascinating would you say it's a fair assessment ? Fast food in the U.S. has grown from a $6 billion-a-year industry in 1970[1] into a corporate juggernaut with more than $170 billion in annual revenues today. [2] Especially because “meat,” dairy and eggs are the main ingredients in fast food, the exponential increase in its consumption has engendered a wide range of negative social impacts—including rapidly rising diet-related disease rates, worker exploitation, systemic animal abuse, and environmental degradation. fastfoodcontent2The fast food industry’s economic clout has not only enabled it to affect a radical shift in the country’s eating patterns, but also fundamentally alter the very way that food is produced. The industry’s enormous purchasing power and demand for vast amounts of cheap animal products are among the principle driving forces behind factory farming, as well as the massive government subsidies for staple animal feed crops like corn and soy that sustain it. [3] As a result of the industry’s excessive economic influence, gigantic multinational corporations like McDonalds, Burger King and KFC make huge profits selling fast food at artificially-reduced prices. Meanwhile, obscured behind the veneer of fast food companies’ slick multi-billion-dollar marketing campaigns are the true costs to public health, fast food workers, animal welfare, and the environment. Fast Food and Dietary Diseases Volumes of peer-reviewed scientific studies conclusively correlate the consumption of “meat” and other animal products with many of the deadliest medical disorders plaguing humankind today, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. The overall U.S. obesity rate has more than doubled since 1980, with more than two-thirds of adults and about one-fifth of all children now being overweight or obese. [4] Both nutritional researchers and public health agencies implicate fast food as a major contributor to the obesity epidemic, mainly because of its high sugar, fat and calorie content (and low overall nutritional value). [5] fastfoodcontent1Children who consume fast food eat more calories overall than those who do not (either regularly or on particular days) because these low-fiber “empty calories” leave people hungry later. One study found that kids who eat fast food consume an average of about 15 percent more calories than those who do not, and gain about an extra six pounds per year as a result if they do not burn those excess calories off through exercise. Fast food was also the main food source for 29 to 38 percent of the randomly-chosen subjects in this study, and it typically replaced healthier options like fresh fruits and vegetables in their diets. [6] Companies deliberately whet children’s appetite for fast food through age-specific advertising campaigns, including television commercials for “Happy Meals” with movie tie-in toys for younger kids and smartphone promotions and online games aimed at teens. [7] [8] Given that fast food companies now collectively spend over $4 billion a year on advertising [9] (with at least $1.5 billion of that directly targeting children), [10] it is no surprise that kids six to eleven years of age were exposed to 59 percent more Subway ads, 26 percent more McDonalds ads, and 10 percent more Burger King ads in 2009 than they were in 2007. [11] Another study by researchers at Yale University found that companies even target young consumers by ethnicity, with African Americans being exposed to at least 50 percent more fast food advertisements than white children and teens.[12] Fast Food and the “Obesogenic Environment” Research shows that, in low-income areas and communities of color especially, fast food franchises tend to cluster around schools, [13] further extending their marketing outreach to young people. This contributes to an “Obesogenic Environment” [14] in which close proximity to fast foods (often at the expense of access to healthier options) increases their consumption of these products—along with the girth or their waistlines. [15] A similar pattern of fast food concentration is also generally found throughout low-income areas and communities of color, where there are on average 30 percent fewer supermarkets than in middle- and high-income regions, [16] which coincides with the results found in Food Empowerment’s report, “Shining a Light on the Valley of Heart’s Delight.” The high density of fast food outlets (as well as liquor and convenience stores) in these neighborhoods selling cheap high-calorie foods often crowds out supermarkets, grocery stores and farmers markets that offer healthy (but often more expensive) dietary options. [17] This results in the proliferation of “food deserts” where residents have little or no access to fresh produce, whole grains and unprocessed foods. African-Americans, Latinos and other people of color most likely to live in food deserts suffer disproportionately from higher rates of obesity (and therefore other diet-related disorders) than whites—and fast food is one of the main causes of this deadly disparity. Residents of food deserts typically have a plethora of fast food restaurants to choose from within walking distance of their homes, but the nearest supermarket or grocery store may be miles away, and many low-income individuals do not have access to private transportation and must work two jobs just to make ends meet. Feeding their families fast food is therefore usually quicker, easier and less expensive than shopping for and preparing home-cooked meals. However, reliance on fast food as a dietary staple (especially over long periods of time) causes dangerously unhealthy weight gain and other physical problems resulting from poor nutrition.[18] Fast Food Impacts on Workers, Animals and the Environment In addition to harming human health, the fast food industry also has detrimental impacts on: Workers: At any given time, there are about 3.5 million fast food workers in the U.S. They typically work for minimum wage without medical benefits or the right to unionize, so turnover is extremely high. With the agricultural industry ranking as one of the most hazardous industries to work for in the U.S., fast food workers, however, also suffer one of the highest injury rates of any employment sector, and are statistically more likely than police officers to be murdered while working. [19] Animals: Since fast food companies purchase such a large proportion of the “meat,” dairy and eggs produced by farmers, they are able to exert enormous influence over how animals are raised for food. [20] As a result, factory farms supply the fast food industry’s demand for vast volumes of animal products at the lowest possible cost by crowding animals together to conserve space (often confining them in cages or crates), pumping them full of non-therapeutic antibiotics and artificial growth hormones, amputating body parts to avoid unnatural stress-induced injuries, and slaughtering them at breakneck speeds on mechanized disassembly lines (often while they remain fully conscious). Cows, chickens and pigs raised to make fast food endure lifelong pain and suffering on factory farms where they are treated like interchangeable production units. The Environment: According to a landmark report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector (and factory farming in particular) is “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global the world faces today.” [21] Meanwhile, fast food companies jointly profit more from factory farming than perhaps any other commercial or industrial sector. In addition, millions of acres of forest are clear-cut every year to manufacture fast food packaging, which comprises approximately one-fifth of all litter in the U.S. [22] In addition, to prevent grease leakage, many fast food companies coat their paper packaging with perfluoroalkyls, which are toxic compounds that harm the environment [23] and human health. [24] Food For Thought It is clear fast food corporations don’t care about anybody-not the workers, not the animals, not the environment, and of course not people’s health. It’s all about making a profit. We would like to tell people not to buy from these fast food giants, but we know that might not always be possible. When there is no choice it is still possible to make a difference by making sure to ask for a vegan option. Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
You state that this is taking away personal freedoms, how so? Wouldn't it give kids more freedom? Think about this, I have known kids who wish to eat healthy but they are very limited in their food selection. They are secluded to only the food their parents buy. If this proposal were to happen, they could choose from the given healthy school food or they could bring their own lunch, eating whatever they wish. This isn't banning junk food in the way that it seems that you imply. Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Not freedoms. Autonomy. That's a significant difference to me, but one we don't necessarily need to get into. What you're saying isn't coherent. If they are in fact limited to the food their parents by then this policy would change nothing in that respect because it is directed at schools, not parents. The proposal isn't to allow kids to eat at school or bring their own meals. It's about controlling what food the school can sell. That's what a ban is. It prohibits something. In this case, what the school can sell. It doesn't add anything new either. I'm not implying any of that. It's literally what a "ban" means. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
So the question is, should schools actively contribute to what is costing so much in healthcare? Does that make sense to you? Is the autonomy really being taken away when those kids can take their own lunch? All you are doing is changing the sources, from the government actively contributing to a HUGE healthcare crisis to them bringing their own food if what they want is food for pleasure that contributes to this crisis. I would disagree with you on the whole, "it doesn't add anything new either". Now the schools where you are may be different but here, if you are looking to eat healthy you are pretty much secluded to salads. If schools were to stop pushing junk food, is it not reasonable to conclude that they would put that money into healthy foods? Instead of selling only salad? It is directed at schools but kids do go their 5 days a week for many, many hours. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
No, the question is whether President Elect Donald Trump should use an executive order to ban junk foods at schools in the United States. Yours is an altogether different question, and one which makes some critical and unfounded assumptions: (1) that providing an option is an active contribution under any circumstance; (2) that consumed junk food sold by schools actually constitutes a significant portion of unhealthy eating; (3) that a ban is the only and most effective way to address the issue, if an issue actually does exist. You raise a valid point that children could exercise effectively the same choice by bringing junk food from home instead of buying it at school. My objection, however, is not just that choice is actually limited but that the motivation behind the policy is overtly one of distrust in the individual to make that choice. Moreover, if what you suggest is true and children would just bring their own junk food instead then the extension of federal executive authority into the schools becomes even an more indefensible Constitutional breach. The idea that schools could put their money into healthy food if they just chose to displays an ignorance of the broader polices at play in the US food industry, educational market, and general economy. Federal subsidies on corn and sugar in particular have created a food market wherein the only affordable options for most individuals and for most schools are unhealthy ones. If this ban succeeded in forcing schools to contract with more expensive alternative providers for their standard meal plans or to terminate the fast food contracts some of them use to fund education, then it would come at direct expense to the quality of education because that's how underfunded schools are in the US. That schools sell unhealthy food is not really the issue, but a symptom of the issue. It's a distraction from the actual policies that have created situations like this, and targeting the schools in this way isn't going to fundamentally change the infrastructure that is producing the obesity epidemic because the schools aren't the root cause. Targeting schools in this way would expand the same federal authority that has created the problem without ever holding it accountable for the problem it's created. It likely wouldn't have any meaningful impact on the obesity epidemic, and the quality of education would diminish. Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
1. Isn't providing options and the freedom to make choices a good thing? Especially when it's adding healthy options? 2. Well I would say that it is where school children spend a significant amount of their time and even after school, with the proper education on nutrition and healthy food options in schools, wouldn't it carry on into their adult lifes statistically? As science shows that we are creatures of habits so if you are creating poor habits and not teaching them early on, are they not destined to fail in this aspect? It seems that your biggest objection is the costs which is a fair thing to consider and is definitely understandable. If this is true and these government subsidies are going to destructive industries, isn't this a problem we should be facing? Corporatism? Why not bring them to redirect these subsidies into healthier industries? I would see it as an investment as just look at how much these unhealthy eating habits cost us. I understand your concern of federal overreach but many schools already receive federal money, they have to in order to stay functioning. What about this, would it be fair to say that federal money should be prohibited from going to unhealthy foods? Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
1
point
The school chooses what is for lunch. So if I was a school, I might feel morally responsible (responsible to make the better choice) for providing a close to perfect meal. I might think that I totally failed at my job if I provided a weak lunch. Keep in mind that a healthy meal can still entail pizza, spaghetti, tacos, etc. Those meals aren't unhealthy. But how about some fresh basil, onion, etc. Don't make it bland. From my experience, antioxidants are the missing ingredient in school lunches. Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
Yes I agree totally ; schools also have a duty of care to children we expect our children to be educated in a clean , safe environment schools should be encouraged to take responsibility for serving healthy nutritious foods to children as part of their duty of care . No offence but it baffles me the way a sizeable proportion of Americans get so annoyed at anyone suggesting this and the assumption seems to be that there rights are being infringed upon which is bizzare ; also this is a worldwide problem that needs to be addressed . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
Yes, I agree. What is insane to me is the way that in one part of the world, people are dying from overeating but in another part, people are starving to death. Seems to me that the world needs to work on creating a state of homeostasis when it comes to such a thing. Side: YES! OF COURSE!
|
No, we really don't. The problem is not that people have no regard for their health. The problem is that our food infrastructure policies make eating healthy challenging, if not outright impossible for some people. This is an issue of federal food policy and poverty. Banning junk food at schools is not going to solve either. That is just more paternalistic drivel to keep people from focusing on the actual issues; if people believe their government is taking care of them they start thinking they don't need to themselves and stop considering that maybe the government is a part of the problem. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Well in that case let's outlaw smoking, drinking (I mean that worked SO well before), excessive eating, create a food bank that only allots a certain amount of food per month to people so that they don't stray from eating too much and only allow them to eat what is deemed healthy. Let's also limit the amount of time someone can spend on the computer and TV, make that a law. All tv's must be off by a certain time, they'll probably have to cut electricity or something to guarantee it unless there are special permissions given.....oh and too much sex? That's unhealthy right? Especially if it's with different partners, they should limit how many people a year you can be intimate with...... Side: NO! What r u talking about??
You're totally missing the point the question asks specifically .... in schools .... we are talking about children here can you not see that? I couldn't give a fuck about adults , smoking ,boozing or eating themselves to death but if they continuously feed their children junk food till the child is obese and continue to do it's child abuse . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Actually I can and you're missing the point of my response to Sitar's comment on "Yes we do. We should not allow people to kill themselves through an unhealthy lifestyle.............................. It was more a sarcastic response to a request for government over-reach. I'm on the fence about junk food at schools. Parents should be supplying the foods for the kids if they are that concerned, the main courses provided by the cafeteria should of course have healthy option but you can't tell me children don't get excited about pizza days in school. Give them a little bit of fun. The rest of it, like candy, soda and all that? They need to money to get it to begin with, if they earn the money through chores and the like then let them have a little freedom with it. When they are at home you serve all the healthy foods you want and give them the exercise and activities they need to be healthy. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Do you not know that there is a difference between anti-health (which is a ridiculous notion) and believing that people should have the ability to choose for themselves without the government over-reaching? Do you think sky diving and bungee jumping should be illegal? Tattoo's? Swimming? Those can endanger a person's well being. Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
Does it not make eating healthy challenging when the public school system actively pushes junkfood? If I provided a way for you to eat healthy on a budget, would you concede your point. You mention the government taking care of people as a bad thing. When the kids are already in the care of the public school system, should we not ensure that they are taken care of to the greatest extents possible? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Does it not make eating healthy challenging when the public school system actively pushes junkfood? Providing options is not "actively pushing" anything. If I provided a way for you to eat healthy on a budget, would you concede your point. No, because my eating habits and nutrition aren't what we are discussing. You mention the government taking care of people as a bad thing. When the kids are already in the care of the public school system, should we not ensure that they are taken care of to the greatest extents possible? I mention paternalism, specifically. Providing services is not the same thing as controlling those choices. Public education is an option, and people can and do opt out of it for other forms of education. I am also opposed to compulsory education, although I can appreciate its pragmatic utility as a short term policy (which isn't how it's been deployed). It is also unclear to me why schools should be the means through which the government engages in its paternalism. That seems indirect, and therefore inefficient. Schools are infrastructurally designed to provide a particular product: education. They aren't structured to get after nutrition, and persisting in using them as such is a stopgap measure that placates people into not actually addressing policies which directly affect nutrition issues (e.g. subsidies, poverty, etc.). Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
1. But as I have mentioned previously, would this not allow for more options? If such a thing happened, it is reasonable to conclude that they would replace this junk food with healthy food and then that junk food option would still be open, when the kids bring their own lunch. As I have mentioned before, currently there aren't a lot of healthy options for kids. 2. Then I don't understand your point. You said that the problem isn't that people aren't willing to educate their self's and eat healthy but rather that eating healthy isn't viable financially. If I proved that you can eat healthy on a budget, how can you make that point? 3.From what I get out of this is schools shouldn't push nutrition as their only job is to educate, correct? Well, why isn't nutrition considered by you to be a valuable source of education? If I can show you that poor eating habits are a HUGE problem in the United States, why would you not want to include education on the topic within the school curriculum? What you mention last seems to tie into the "the financial aspect is the problem" when you told me that even if I showed you that you can eat good for cheap, it wouldn't change your mind so I'm a little confused there. I would also like to mention that good nationwide nutrition could be expected to help things such as poverty. I understand how that statement may sound silly but think about it. All those health issues that arise from poor nutrition, how much do you think that tends to cost? Health care is very expensive, would you disagree? Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
I was being snarky more than substantive, but I can elaborate. The idea motivating the banning of junk food at schools is paternalistic because it situate the state as responsible and legitimate in restricting the options of individuals rather than permitting them to make their own choices, generally on the basis of not believing people can or should make their own choices. Not only do I find that personally offensive, but I don't think it's philosophically defensible because there is no objective criterion of harm which makes paternalism fundamentally about opposing one's one concept of the good onto the personal choices and lives of others for no reason other than that you think it's good. The policy would be federalist because the proposal is for the whole country, making it a federal policy. I'm generally against federalist powers where they are not strictly necessary, and I hardly think this counts as necessary. For a start, there is no reason the individual states could not opt to do this or not on their own autonomy. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
Does it not make it validated when the schools are the ones funding the food in many cases? Such as through the free lunches program? You could say what about the ones who don't but then are you gonna push the financially poor kids to be highlighted in such a ridiculing way? Why do you wish for a government institution to actively support the obesity epidemic that is weighing heavily on our healthcare system? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Free and reduced lunch programs generally do not actually cover junk food, even under a fairly broad reading of the term "junk food". These are usually supplementary items bought at personal expense to accompany the funded school meal, or in a much smaller number of schools are unfunded alternative fast food options. I think it's a stretch to say this is "validating" junk food, at least to any appreciable degree that overrides the students' ability to know that cookies and McD's fries aren't nutritious. If you want to argue that the standard meal itself constitutes junk food, and I'd agree they're not especially healthy, then regarding a ban as an option is incredibly stupid. Actually healthy meal service programs are prohibitively expensive to public schools, because schools are chronically and severely underfunded and because federal subsidies on corn and sugar have created a massive market distortion in favor of unhealthy foods (even food that aren't properly "junk food"). Private individuals face the same problem for the same reasons, even in middle-class households. Federal food policy is the real basis of the obesity epidemic, and that's where the real solution is. I don't want the government to actively support the obesity epidemic, but I also understand that schools are stuck within a system they didn't create so blaming them isn't sensible and neither is treating the problem through them. This is a side-issue designed to be hot-button and distracting, because there are strong vested interests in government in keeping federal food policies in place. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Healthy and unhealthy are ways of eating. I will not deny that. However who are we to say that someone who eats unhealthy is doing a bad thing? I don't see how feeding the child can ever be considered child abuse unless the child is being harmed and placed in a hostile environment Side: YES! OF COURSE!
A child that's being fed junk will and that's obese you have no opinion on and you don't see it as a bad thing ? I suggest you visit a hospital where these unfortunate children present with an array of issues all because of unhealthy eating habits . Feeding a child is not child abuse feeding a child junk till that child is clinically obese is , and it's not abuse unless the child is being harmed ? But obese children are being harmed unless even if you say not so it is abuse . What baffles me is why so many Americans get absolutely livid over this issue and assume it's governments attempting to take away a right ; this problem is a worldwide problem it's about time people admitted it but to do so places them in a position as being judged as bad parents . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
This would imply that the intent of the parent is that of harm. I believe that plays a big factor as abuse typically has ill intent. I do not see ill intent in feeding your child unhealthy food. If the parent is purposefully feeding the child unhealthy food on purpose, with the intent to cause harm, then I can understand where child abuse applies. What baffles me is why so many Americans get absolutely livid over this issue and assume it's governments attempting to take away a right ; this problem is a worldwide problem it's about time people admitted it but to do so places them in a position as being judged as bad parents . Well, this dives into other argments such as the cost of healthy food vs unhealthy food, the availability of food, etc. Not allowing people to eat what they want will cause an uproar. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
If a parent has a child who is obese through unhealthy eating habits and they continue to feed the child this way against advice , that's intentional abuse of the child . You claim abuse implies ill intent which is not true as there can be unintentional abuse are you not aware of this ? You finish with the blame game which again Americans for some bizzare reason resort to every time when the much loved cost of healthy eating v unhealthy eating is cited as an argument , going on this logic what you're saying is that a proportion of your society has no choice but to be obese as heathy eating is to expensive ? I never said people cannot eat what they want you are merely saying this for some bizzare reason only you know , I could not care less what way a mature citizen wants to abuse themselves but to inflict on a child is abuse .... but hey we might upset people and cause an uproar ... Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
I guess there could be unintended child abuse with feeding your child, but doesn't that just sound odd to you? Maybe I just can't grasp the entirety of the situation. If I haven't made sense then I apologize. I respect your opinion, I just can't see its practicality. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
Thank you I also respect your opinion and I guess if we all thought the same it would be a really boring world . I live next door to a surgeon he told me kids are presenting at hospital with an array of diseases which are caused by obesity which is to do with overeating and the eating of junk ; the scary thing is the parents mostly know the cause of the problem but do nothing about it . When you see grossly overweight children do you not think they know exactly why they are this way ? Parents make every excuse to try and justify why their kids continue to be obese and normally blame absolutely everyone but themselves ; in our over the top PC societies people are terrified to call a spade a spade I'm certainly not as I find it truly scary that people do anything to justify this scourge and are terrified to call bad parenting exactly what it is . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
I would disagree that we can't see it as a bad thing but I understand what you are saying, what about the persons rights to choose? My question to you is, which person rights are you rooting for? The parents rights or the right of that child to be able to choose to eat healthy? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Yes I'm judging what parents feed their children , and yes their is a defined way right and wrong way to eat that's why hospitals , doctors and health card professionals design programmes of effective and healthy eating habits worldwide ; you've never heard of this ? A parent that's feeds a child junk and continues to do so as the child gets obese is abusing the child . Side: YES! OF COURSE!
Yes I'm judging parents and of course there is a right and a wrong way to eat that's why Doctors , Dieticians and healthcare professionals worldwide design healthy and effective eating programmes in an atttempt to addresss this problem; you seem totally oblivious to this fact whys that ? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
I am fully aware of what people say about eating healthy. I am also aware of what people say about cigarettes. I am also aware of what people say about doing drugs. All are "bad" for you, but it is up to the discretion of the person who participates in eating unhealthy, or smoking, or doing drugs. Now I know that drugs and cigarettes are on a different level than food, but the reason we don't really bat an eye is because we have no control over others and their choices do not affect us. What someone feeds their child has nothing to do with me at all. I do not know the situations that strike the parent either so who am I to judge their eating habits? Side: YES! OF COURSE!
As I pointed out what an adult does to their own body regarding abusing it is indeed their choice ; not so with a child who relies on his parents to look after him /her . Why are you making commentary on something which you say has nothing to do with you ? Who are you to judge you say , well obviously someone who is totally unconcerned yet suprisingly makes their opinion known on the matter Side: YES! OF COURSE!
1
point
As I pointed out what an adult does to their own body regarding abusing it is indeed their choice ; not so with a child who relies on his parents to look after him /her . I am fully aware. However, there are still many circumstances that would warrant the banning of junk food ridiculous. We also do not know the intent of the parent as that would define if it's abuse or not. Why are you making commentary on something which you say has nothing to do with you ? What has nothing to do with me is the choice of food provided to a random child. Side: NO! What r u talking about??
1
point
1
point
|