Nats back obesity in schools. Posted on 10:51, February 6th, 2009 by Roger NomeNational’s Education minister Anne Tolley has announced that National will once again be allowing the sale of obesity-promoting foods to children in public schools. A quick lesson for those who would celebrate this step backwards …. Obesity rates roughly doubled in the US over the 30 years, going from 14.5% in 1971 to be 30.9% in 2000. The main cause of this increase was an increase in the average number of calories consumed, particularly in the form of carbohydrates. The primary source of these extra carbohydrates is sweetened beverages. Yet this is precisely the type of food that the National Party will be allowing schools to sell to children once again. But of course there’s a reason we don’t let children make all their own decisions regarding their own health. Children generally, for a variety of reasons, have very limited decision making abilities. Also, as is well known, obese children are at much greater risk of becoming obese adults. So why would people like David Farrar (National’s semi-official blogger) celebrate the ability of children to procure foods which decrease their quality of life, and life span? Well, it’s all about putting personal ideology ahead of the health of children. In other words, the motivation is a selfish one. How tragic and sad.  Tags: Health32 Responses to “Nats back obesity in schools.”Leave a Reply |
 |
© 2008 Kiwipolitico StarScape Theme (1.5.5: Scorpius) | Design by: GDragoN Powered by: Wordpress Valid XHTML Valid CSS |
Posted in 
..and short-sighted. While Farrar and the like may wish that we had no public provision of health care, the reality is we do. I don’t have the figures on hand (a quick google will find them for anyone that cares) but the costs of obesity are huge. Thats money that we as taxpayers are paying to the government that could either be used for other more productive investments, or could not be paid to the government in the first place (ie tax cuts).
This is one particular area where the Nats annoy me. They favour tax cuts and responsible government spending, but oppose simple, relatively harmless, and cheap measures that will save huge amounts of money in the long term by making peoples lives better (this is just one example of many).
F**king nats want the sugar barons to invade our schools.
Using the logic applied by those opposing the ban (people will just go to the diary down the road), they would be having schools sell booze, smokes and porn in our schools. (in fact there was a private school in Chrischurch a few years back that opened a bar in its senior common room)..
Yes, kids can just go down the road, but at least the schools wont be selling them. The good news is that it appears that schools wont be going back to full scale junkfood again…
Obesity is an issue caused by many factors not just this one. The entire Western lifestyle is laden with obesity-encouraging dynamics.
The point is, if you think that compulsion is the way to deal with this in an isolated instance such as school diet, where do you stop at, when applying that same principle to all the other dynamics that operate?
That’s where conservatives I think are coming from here. Regrettably, they haven’t given an alternative strategy toward dealing with the issue and that’s where they’ve let us down.
Perhaps if they examined the reasons behind the fact that it never used to be a problem 20 years ago despite the then widespread availability of junk food, they might gain some insight and share it with the rest of us.
I don’t think thats a problem for two reasons. Firstly, these are kids. We use compulsion with them all the time, because we don’t think their reasoning skills are developed enough to make all their own decisions. No one seems particularly opposed to this idea either (in fact the right is usually more in favour of limiting the decision making powers of young people). Secondly, this is state education. It seems backward for the state education system to allow something strongly associated with obesity, when the state (and therefore us as taxpayers) will have to pay the health costs associated with obesity later in life (and increasing early in life).
Roger: I object to your personalising the issue by mentioning David Farrar. There are many on the Right who feel that the State was intruding when it sought to impose the healthy food only regime. Rather than being selfish, many were simply objecting to the removal of choice and personal responsibility in that particular issue area. You and I may disagree with the Right on this, but there was zero need to include the last paragraph to make the case. In fact, whatever he may be, your choosing to mention David and label him as the “semi-official blogger” of the National party turned what could have been a reasoned argument into a snarky ad hominum (and to be perfectly honest, a carry-over feud from other sites that has no place here). Doing so detracts from what you were saying, makes you look petty, and invites others to do the same (as indeed, millsy has done in his/her first sentence). Please try to raise your game.
Great It’s the school boards that decide what can or can’t be sold in schools just as it is the school boards that decide what rules and regulations to put in place regarding uniforms and what is acceptable or not at their schools – are you suggesting one should have more faith in central government dictating what we should allow kids to have for food on school grounds or accept that we’re capable of making our own decisions.
Now we can at least have a sausage sizzle to raise funds without looking over our shoulders in fear of the ERO.
The strawmen built by [word edited out by jafapete] like Millsy just serves to make the people arguing for the ban look like they believe those on school boards are some kind of cabal who are only there to milk children and their parents for all they’re worth ……. shame on you for having such a low opinion of schools and their boards.
Different issue, same old ideological divide. A couple of points, though.
We are not suggesting that children be removed from parental control and brought up in separate institutions where their diet can be strictly controlled. (I think they tried something like that in China during the Cultural Revolution, with disastrous consequences.)
So can people not use terms like “dictating” when what is being discussed is regulation of what state schools can offer children in the way of food. The state also “dictates” that we all drive on the LHS of the road. Using such terms doesn’t advance the debate very far.
Also, Reid, I don’t think that the previous government ever thought that “compulsion is the [only] way to deal with this.” As you point out, obesity is a multi-faceted problem, and I recall that there were (are?) educational campaigns being developed and operating.
It simply is not good enough once again to abrogate any social responsibility on the grounds that the market will provide the best outcomes, or under cover of “individual responsibility”. Five year olds don’t have “individual responsibility”, and in NZ too many children suffer at the hands of ill-equipped or uncaring parents and guardians as it is.
So, when I first read the post I thought, “good one”, quite possibly because I’ve just returned from two months in California, and have seen enough obese people now to last me a lifetime (or two).
On reflection, perhaps RN could have referred to “right-wing bloggers” rather than naming the Farrar.
On rogerednome’s last point, if some school boards weren’t allowing the wrong foods to be sold to the children in their care, then there would have been no need for the regulations. I have no doubt that many responsible boards were entirely unaffected by the regulations. But for the others, yes, I do have a low opinion of them. Shame on you for supporting them.
Yes I think you’re right jafa, and I wasn’t suggesting compulsion was the only tactic the previous govt adopted. I imagine the exercise ads we see are another angle on this same issue.
My real point was around the previous govt’s apparent willingness to resort to compulsion much more often than would conservatives. As a conservative I think it’s something that is a last-resort sort of thing, to be wielded only after all other options have been tried but have failed. I didn’t however see an awful of that approach over the last ten years. To the contrary it was almost as if compulsion had instead become a tool of first resort.
Jafapete
So your response is regulate to the lowest common denominator – outstanding !
Meanwhile the vast amountof sensible schools and boards are not able to have the odd sausage sizzle with a can of coke on the weekend to raise some money …….. really get a life regulate and create laws where they need to be created otherwise leave well enough alone lest people won’t be able to wipe the backsides without seeking permission from the government of the day.
oh and on another note it’s gnome not nome
1. Well spoken Pablo.
2. This issue is not about 5-year-olds making choices of unhealthy foods. It’s about school boards (not children) being “entrusted” to make decisions on what foods and drinks will be stocked in the school shop. I would expect the Ministry to provide sound advice to boards about the dangers of excessive consumption of certain types of food, perhaps even guidelines or health ratings on a range of products that might be favoured.
3. The concept of regulating school food from Wellington is a well-meaning but misguided distraction from the multitude of personal attitudes, lifestyle habits and excesses of commercialisation that contribute collectively to obesity. The problem of obesity that has developed over the last 25 years is too serious to be tackled through tuckshop tokenism.
But we do this all the time. The vast majority of us have never (and I suspect will never) commit murder, rape etc etc, nonetheless we legislate for the lowest common denominator (thereby restricting freedom of choice). It seems silly to suggest that something is wrong simply because it either legislates to the lowest common denominator or restricts freedom of choice (particularly when we have a society that insists people be insulated from the negative effects of their free choice, meaning we have a fundamental lack of freedom to begin with).
This is one of the classic issues that symbolises the division between left and right. The left believes the government knows better – parents aren’t capable of making correct decisions for themselves! The right believes in freedom of choice – the right to let the individual control their own lives.
Fair enough Nome?
Not really Greg.
Kids don’t get to make all of their own decisions. They don’t have freedom of choice and they certainly don’t have the right to control their own lives.
Adults have to do most of that for them. At home, parents do it.
At school, the school is the adult. The adult makes decisions for the kids.
Not sure if this is relevant but a good many decades ago I used to go to many family celebrations, weddings, 21st’s etc and I was struck by the difference between the children who had been brought up in WWII and post years and the older generation who had lived through the depression years of the thirties.
The later had a lean hungry worn look as opposed to the chubby children.
I wonder if the current ecconomic problems continue the problem of obesity will cure itself irrespective of what the politicians do.
The fact that parents take the easy course and fill their children with sweets and softdrinks from an early age to keep them quiet shows that parents in general simply do not have the knowledge or intelligence to not bring up their kids the way they were brought up. Sweets should be a treat not a staple diet. So I support the relaxation if it means fund raising ‘treats’ can re-start but deplore the regained freedom to make it part of the daily diet.
And its wrong.
The vast majority of us have never (and I suspect will never) commit murder, rape etc etc, nonetheless we legislate for the lowest common denominator (thereby restricting freedom of choice).”
We legislate to provide a means to “clean up” the fallout of action….no law ever stopped anyonme doing what they set out to do…
“It seems silly to suggest that something is wrong simply because it either legislates to the lowest common denominator or restricts freedom of choice (particularly when we have a society that insists people be insulated from the negative effects of their free choice, meaning we have a fundamental lack of freedom to begin with).
”
True….”freedom” from consequences means no real freedom for anyone who is forced by the state to pick up the tab..
“Not sure if this is relevant but a good many decades ago I used to go to many family celebrations, weddings, 21st’s etc and I was struck by the difference between the children who had been brought up in WWII and post years and the older generation who had lived through the depression years of the thirties.
The later had a lean hungry worn look as opposed to the chubby children.”
Exactly….different incentives create different outcomes……
Abstinence only dieting…
I see there has been a bit of a stash between the usual suspects about Anne Tolley’s decision to remove a national directive requiring all schools to serve only healthy food and beverage options. The argument basically boils down gunning down the evil…
One of the things that bugs me about the rhetoric from the right over this issue is that on the one hand the complain about bad parents feeding their children junk food (beneficiaries who have takeaways and soft drinks for dinner is the common complaint) but on the other hand they think that the state, while acting in loco parentis should provide kids with all the junk food they can eat.
Once again we see one standard for “good” parents and another for “bad” parents.
James – a comment of yours was moderated for being unnecessarily inflammatory. You’ve been warned about this before. Remember, that behavior isn’t tolerated here – there are plenty of other blogs for that. Shape up or ship out.
Tell someone who cares nomey….I can’t even remember what I wrote there…
Was it something about food fascists? Pretty tame….and accurate.
The difference Anita is that the bad parents/beneficiaries are living on taxpayers money…therefore the taxpayer expects them to use it well and not to make themselves worse off and their kids unhealthy….as the same taxpayers will then be forced to shell out to help them out later and on it goes.People on taxpayers money DO NOT have the same freedoms and license as those who aren’t as they are in debt to the rest of us…..an obligation is assumed and expected.
National are NOT saying that schools should feed kids junk…just that its not the role of schools to play parent.The food police have no business in our schools.
Actually it is the role of the school to “play parent” as you put it, from 9 to 3 every weekday.
James:
If you can’t find language to criticise something without resorting to Nazi, Fascist, Communist or other such idiotic comparisons, then it might be that this place is not for you.
As I usually say to people who inadvertently end up sounding like Rick, from The Young Ones, a warm glass of perspective might be in order. Perhaps you should go and live in a one-party, communist, or authoritarian state for a while. Or talk to someone who has about their experiences. Or read one of the many excellent analyses of how they operate. Start with Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism and proceed from there to Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, which should keep you busy for a few months.
Unless you do actually want to sound like Rick, in which case we can happily stop taking you seriously, though there are plenty of other venues for you to do so.
L
No it is and they don’t.They are fulfilling their role as educator…parenting is a far different role.
I call it as I see it Lew….the ideas expoused here are no different in principle from those labels I’ve described….just a matter of degree….and a matter of time.All concerned are advocating socialism,control,altruism,individual rights violations and big Government….as I said…just a matter of degree and time.If that fact upsets you then maybe its you who needs to seach your soul and ask if my assesment of you beliefs is really that wrong.If a bit of passionate opposition is too much for you to handle then maybe you should close down this blog and hold your get togethers in a phone booth where no one expouses differing opinions…
Catch up son….you are a bit behind the times.I have family members living in countries that deprive them of certain liberties and rights….I have others who fought against regimes that violated peoples rights and murdered them….My Father helped liberate a concentration camp in WW2,…take your patronising BS elsewhere.
As for books I commend to you The Black Book of Communism,Hungry Ghosts,Zimbabewe:Death of a dream,Die…the beloved Country,Gulag,Cancer Ward,Islam Unveiled and about a hundred others I have to loan…see ya in a few years.
James:
And if you don’t think matters of degree are important … well.
It’s not the opinions, it’s the rhetoric. It’s not that I [we] can’t handle it, it’s that I [we] choose not to bother.
Perhaps you should reflect on whether your father would appreciate the comparison of a death camp to the requirement to serve healthy food. I would be surprised.
Some of those aren’t very credible, but still … it seems you have no excuse for your chronic lack of perspective. Still, what I said above stands: rein it in, or give it up.
L
James that’s simply untrue. Schools absolutely do take on the legal responsibility of a parent during school hours.
They couldn’t possibly function without that responsibility.
You really need to think these things through, James. Anyone who has had anything to do with the education system understands this essential principle.
Felix & James,
Having been the person who first said in loco parentis in this thread, I have now actually bothered doing some research. In this interesting article there is a good case put forward that the concept is legally obsolete and that schools are exercising their powers on behalf of the state not the parents.
But even though it is arguably no longer the legal position, it remains a significant part of our conception of the role of schools:
Interesting article. I’m not sure though that it makes any practical difference.
It seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that the argument in the article is that schools are answerable to the Education Act and therefore it’s the state who is assuming the role of the parent.
Parents are also answerable to all manner of laws in the day to day raising of children.
Oh….? Which ones your highness? Care to explain why?
He knows full well that authoritarianism starts with small well meaning actions for the ‘public good” that are used to justify more and more intensive violations of liberty until the inevertible end is reached…
They are….thats why my rifle remains in the closet and not braced across my knee oiled and loaded….I voice my opinion to try to ensure that the day I have to do so never arrives…
But the principle involved is the same regardless of the degree …..theft is theft regardless of wheather its a dollar taken or ten million…no?
James,
You have made your point about liberty, on this thread and others. I have disagreed with it already, and I’ll not bother reiterating my reasons. Let me be absolutely clear: this point, and most else, is a matter for debate. Please continue to debate it, with any who will participate.
However your tone remains marginal. It is unacceptable to belittle those with whom you hold discourse by calling them `fascists’, or `comrade’, or `your highness’. It is unacceptable to baldly state that the smallest supposed restriction of your freedom is morally equivalent to the largest for the purpose of scoring cheap political points. It is acceptable elsewhere (and elsewhere, even when it is unacceptable you may get away with it), but it is not acceptable here, and you will not get away with it.
Your presence, and your ideas, are under no threat of being extinguished in this forum, unless you fail to rein in your rhetorical extravagances. If you are unable argue your positions without resorting to these sorts of excess, you will be prevented from doing so here.
So – take this as a threat if you like, but it’s intended as an opportunity. If honest and reasoned discussion is more important to you than scoring rhetorical points, welcome. If not, then there’s a whole world of other venues in which you can participate.
L