The problem is that without measurable results, it's possible that more harm than good could actually be done. Doing more of something that is completely ineffective sounds typical of a bureaucracy, but not something that should be rubber stamped because the ideology or intentions seem correct.More needs to be done not less. This policy change is moving in the direction of doing less and undoing the direct step the government can do to improve the situation for 5 out of 21 meals each week. If you really to do something about the problem you keep this policy in place and then look for the next steps that can be taken to help address those other 16 meals a week.
The problem is that without measurable results, it's possible that more harm than good could actually be done. Doing more of something that is completely ineffective sounds typical of a bureaucracy, but not something that should be rubber stamped because the ideology or intentions seem correct.
May I just stipulate that I'm not opposed to doing more of something, as long as the outcome can be proven positive?We are at an impasse.
Actually, our knowledge of what is "healthy" is constantly evolving. At the moment, there are few foods that achieve universal acclaim, like olive oil and leafy vegetables. Diet studies are notoriously hard to derive meaningful results from.Well, we definitely know obesity is a problem, and sales of shit foods go hand in hand with that.
Encouraging healthy eating at a public school is a positive pretty much any way you look at it.
If the debate is what constitutes healthy, we have a pretty good grasp of that.
A difficult charge to defend against; you speak for the status quo and conventional wisdom, which is a pretty safe and easy position to take. But people have taken notice that conventional wisdom was wrong about things like margarine being better then butter, and that eggs are bad for you. Surely there is more received wisdom that will be proven incorrect, for instance, more troubling possible linkages have been found between diet soda and various illnesses.The internet has been a major detriment to public health in some ways. Low information individuals doing their own 'research' via Google, and kidding themselves they are qualified to do so, are getting suckered by snake oil salesmen. It's been a significant contributor to a lot of these bizarre positions you come across; anti-vax, distrust of proven treatments, holistic 'medicine' etc.
My mother raised 4 kids on 50 dollars a week ( we were poor ) and she still managed to feed us good food. I mean you actually had to cook then, which many parents are too lazy to do these days.
The stores also stock good cheap food too.... It just isn't prepared already. Just because they have lots of junk doesn't mean you have to buy it.
Actually, our knowledge of what is "healthy" is constantly evolving. At the moment, there are few foods that achieve universal acclaim, like olive oil and leafy vegetables. Diet studies are notoriously hard to derive meaningful results from.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/eb2-ldm041217.phpWould you agree saturated fats and excessive sodium are bad?
Yea ok, eating doritos and snack cakes is the same as fruits, vegetables, and lean meats.Actually, our knowledge of what is "healthy" is constantly evolving. At the moment, there are few foods that achieve universal acclaim, like olive oil and leafy vegetables. Diet studies are notoriously hard to derive meaningful results from.
A difficult charge to defend against; you speak for the status quo and conventional wisdom, which is a pretty safe and easy position to take. But people have taken notice that conventional wisdom was wrong about things like margarine being better then butter, and that eggs are bad for you. Surely there is more received wisdom that will be proven incorrect, for instance, more troubling possible linkages have been found between diet soda and various illnesses.
In the case of the new, healthier school lunches, I think it is important to figure out if there are unintended consequences arising from making the lunches "too healthy," that is, do latchkey kids that throw away their lunches go home and binge on stuff that's even worse because they are so hungry? I'm genuinely curious, because I have a kid who has exhibited this behavior when she didn't like what was being served, and we had failed to send her along with a sack lunch.
You are simply putting words in my mouth, things that I would never say, btw.Yea ok, eating doritos and snack cakes is the same as fruits, vegetables, and lean meats.
Certainly you are a care provider, I can sympathize with your position. But it says nothing specific about this discussion, or anything specific about what I've asserted.If peer reviewed research, therapies proven by their efficacy and a foundation of knowledge and study built on it is status quo and conventional wisdom then yes. Part of wisdom is knowing what you don't know and what you're not qualified for. Punching things into google does not an informed expert make. Dr. Google is thrown around these days to describe having to contend with Google schooled 'experts' and their assorted beliefs.
You can confirm any position with Google. Somewhere you will find a link to someone saying what you want to hear.
So simply presenting common sense stance is enough for you.You are simply putting words in my mouth, things that I would never say, btw.
I'm not sure, but it seems like I'm eliciting some hostility from you. I'm mostly just here to express my opinion, not to make enemies. I'd like to be able to dissent while keeping the thread on-topic and not derailing into personal attacks.So simply presenting common sense stance is enough for you.
You sure you don't need a full on scientific study?
Oh, okay, I'm sorry I got something from the tone of your posts that you say isn't there. I honestly don't even think about "feigning" anything. This is just a friendly chat, then. But I disagree with you to the extent that in my specific example, so many people bought into the advice about what was good and what was bad, it became pervasive enough that a great many people did indeed consider it common sense. These kinds of things become ingrained in our culture and are difficult to root out, even when proven wrong.What you're told has nothing to do with common sense.
It's sucks someone asking you questions makes you think there's hostility, way to feign attacks.
We can agree that continuing to learn is a must.Oh, okay, I'm sorry I got something from the tone of your posts that you say isn't there. I honestly don't even think about "feigning" anything. This is just a friendly chat, then. But I disagree with you to the extent that in my specific example, so many people bought into the advice about what was good and what was bad, it became pervasive enough that a great many people did indeed consider it common sense. These kinds of things become ingrained in our culture and are difficult to root out, even when proven wrong.
As an aside, I find it almost surreal that I am being called to account for wanting changes to school lunch programs to actually produce meaningful results. Why would this be a controversial stance, other than it's perceived to be hostile to a certain ideology? Like lots of other things, our kids health ought to be above partisan bullshit, but hell, no, it poisons every discussion.
I think I missed that post, a link might help.Only republicans could argue that the government should be allowed to shovel junk food into children's mouths.
Can you clarify? There is a lot of shared responsibility, it's easy to stake out a position on one extreme or another, obviously we all know that the reality is a lot messier. Seems like it used to be that we would discuss things related to the degree which one party or another is responsible for what, who should control what, etc. But the extremes have hijacked most of the narratives, and it's harming our progress, imo....I think where you and I diverge is the topic of whose responsible to maintain the health of the population.
Hang on, I'm not "spinning" anything, I'm presenting my opinion. Leave the pejoratives aside if this is a friendly discussion. The interesting thing about diabetes and obesity is that the latest research indicates that the recent epidemic has been at least partially caused by our drastic increase in refined carb consumption. Do you know when the diabetes epidemic began? When the government began recommending a low-fat diet. It's plausible that the government therefore has been responsible for countless premature deaths and incalculable suffering that might not have otherwise occurred! So a lot a care is called for; despite an earlier poster's attempt to conflate the issues of climate change and nutritional science, the latter is most definitely not "settled science."Sure. We have a nation with many people who want the government to stay out of their business, which is what I'm referring to.
Yet, their business involves afflictions like diabetes and obesity. And people seem content to pass this along to their children.
Are we to allow public health issues to continue, even in the midst of drastically increased healthcare costs, or will our government intervene and try to help by teaching and providing healthier eating habits?
Do we discount common sense because people want to to have an attitude that the government shouldn't be pushing them into healthy eating?
But wait, is it about money? Well were just crushing it in the military area. And all the vets who live with lifelong afflictions such as diabetes or the like consume even more of our tax dollars.
This is just the tip of the ice berg. You can easily digress into how poor eating habits are creating enormous increases in costs for everyone.
Why would I frown on teaching good eating habits when it's a net positive overall however you spin it?