Childhood Obesity -- Should it be a crime?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Would you say all restaurants in general have no place in the schools?

Yeah, because I think the school cafeteria needs to be in charge of all food distribution to the kids. The school cafeteria workers work for the school district, and thus ultimately answer to the superintendant and school board, which ultimately answers to the township residents.

If you outsource food distribution to a restaurant then you can lose control over what gets served, depending on the nature of the contract entered into by the school district and the restaurant.

I'd like to see the school cafeteria completely in charge, and serving plenty of healthy options. Luckily that's currently the case in my school district.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, because I think the school cafeteria needs to be in charge of all food distribution to the kids. The school cafeteria workers work for the school district, and thus ultimately answer to the superintendant and school board, which ultimately answers to the township residents.

If you outsource food distribution to a restaurant then you can lose control over what gets served, depending on the nature of the contract entered into by the school district and the restaurant.

I'd like to see the school cafeteria completely in charge, and serving plenty of healthy options. Luckily that's currently the case in my school district.

Just curious because a lot of people have no problem getting rid of the McDonalds and Burger Kings, but if they were to offer "home made" options for burgers and pizza, no one would have a problem.

Making sure you're giving corporate America it's due.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Just curious because a lot of people have no problem getting rid of the McDonalds and Burger Kings, but if they were to offer "home made" options for burgers and pizza, no one would have a problem.

Making sure you're giving corporate America it's due.

Yeah those people would be silly. Pizza is pizza, burgers are burgers. It's unhealthy no matter how you cut it.

It's all about who I have the ability to yell at if they don't do what I want.

LOL

Funny but true. If my school cafeteria served nothing but pizza and cheeseburgers, I could complain to the school board and if I got my community riled up enough, the school board would want to shut us up and they could easily direct the cafeteria to make the change. But if it's Pizza Hut serving the pizza, it's a hell of a lot harder to go yell at my school board to convince them to break the relationship with Pizza Hut (may be financial ramifications of breaking contract, the school would need to plan for alternative food providers, etc.).

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah those people would be silly. Pizza is pizza, burgers are burgers. It's unhealthy no matter how you cut it.

It's all about who I have the ability to yell at if they don't do what I want.

LOL

Funny but true. If my school cafeteria served nothing but pizza and cheeseburgers, I could complain to the school board and if I got my community riled up enough, the school board would want to shut us up and they could easily direct the cafeteria to make the change. But if it's Pizza Hut serving the pizza, it's a hell of a lot harder to go yell at my school board to convince them to break the relationship with Pizza Hut (may be financial ramifications of breaking contract, the school would need to plan for alternative food providers, etc.).

That is not true. My mom makes very healthy pizza. The sauce is made from scratch with very little salt and garlic as a substitute. Dough is made as well, with limited salt and oils. The the cheese used is fresh, and very limited. Only toppings are veggies and lean grilled chicken. Of course a salad is better, but it is pretty damn healthy pizza.

[Schneed10]

I was one of the few Americans that watched Shaq's Big Challenge on TV last year. Tyler Florence (celeb chef) came in and took over a school cafeteria for a few weeks. He had to keep his budget under $1 per plate and still serve a healthy meal. At first he got carried away, putting way too much time into prepping it (he was trying to hand wrap like 250 chicken caesar salad wraps in 20 minutes). But eventually he came up with a number of efficient and simple solutions that were pretty healthy, and actually looked pretty darn good. Healthy food in schools can be done, it doesn't have to be cheeseburgers or fried chicken patties all the time.

[firstdown]

I think that the public schools are now starting to realise that offering a more balanced lunch is not that hard to do but lets be real thats only on meal. I would say its what the children are eating before and after school which is probably more of the issue. Also the lack of exercise plays a bigger part than what they are eating everyday. I know when I was A kid when we got home we bolted to play out side until we where forced by our parents to come in and eat dinner and do our homework. That is another issue is the lack of having two parents raising their children. I just read yesterday that single family parents are costinfg this country like 100 billion per year because of the strains that they put on our social programs. I guess if you look at the big picture the lack of family structure is putting a strain on everyone.

[EternalEnigma21]

yeah I make a pizza on the grill with whole wheat crust, olive oil, scarcely scattered goat and feta cheeses, fresh tomatoes, baby spinach, pine nuts, garlic, and mushrooms. It's really good and not bad for you at all.

not saying that the school could justifiably do that, but there are ideas out there.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by EternalEnigma21

not saying that the school could justifiably do that, but there are ideas out there.

Yeah that's my thing.

Hoo, that pizza sounds good, please tell your mom to invite me over... again. (ZING!)

LOL

But seriously, schools aren't going to do that. But if they do, that pizza would pass the test. One thing's for sure though... Pizza Hut will NOT do that!

[SmootSmack]

I think it must have been discussed here but I missed it, but has the topic of a "fat tax" been brought up here?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think it must have been discussed here but I missed it, but has the topic of a "fat tax" been brought up here?

Whole thread on it:
http://www.redskinswarpath.com/parki...g-brother.html

As for this thread, I do not think the government should have the right to intrude upon anyone's privacy b/c they have fat children.

My concern is that to create a situation where having an obese child is prima facia evidence of criminal behavior would seem to me to give the government probable cause to search and seize anything relating to the child's obesity. IMO,the causes of childhood obesity are far too wide-ranging to create the legal assumption that a fat child equals abusive parenting.

I think there are sufficient laws on the books to punish those who are abusive to children both directly and indirectly. While childhood obesity is a problem that costs us millions of dollars in unseen expenses, they are costs I am willing to pay to keep the cops and DSS out of my house just b/c junior is on a Whopper binge.

[hooskins]

on fat food or people?

[Schneed10]

I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.

But now that food prices are skyrocketing, it's impractical to impose that tax. With food prices going up, people without means are going to work even harder to keep their food costs down, and rely even more on McDonald's and such. Taxing them on top of it would probably break the camel's back.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.

But now that food prices are skyrocketing, it's impractical to impose that tax. With food prices going up, people without means are going to work even harder to keep their food costs down, and rely even more on McDonald's and such. Taxing them on top of it would probably break the camel's back.

Well lets tax skinny people who eat high fat food and have high colestoral, smokers (they are allready taxed), drinkers, etc... we could go on and on. How about people who do risky sports like sky diving? If they die their family receives SS from them or if they become disabled they qualify for several social programs. I'd say fat people are less likely to draw off our system because they die before age 65. Think about it how many older fat people do you see out and about. I can't think of any really older people who are real fat.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I like the idea of a fat tax, in concept. If you eat more fast food, you're more likely to need medical care, and you're most likely to need it when you're 65 and on Medicare (heart trouble), which the government pays for with our tax dollars. So if you're more likely to make use of the government's healthcare plan, you should be paying more to the government.

I don't know whether those who live unhealthy lives actually end up costing taxpayers more than those who live healthy lives. The people who exercise, eat right and who don't drink or smoke are likely to live longer lives than those who do not and, therefore, put a bigger strain on our Social Security Systems. Moreover, it might be less costly for someone to suffer mild health problems and die of a Big Mac-induced heart attack at 60, than live to be 95 and encounter many of the ailments that tend to affect the elderly.

I'd like to see some independent studies conducted into these kinds of economic issues. I read one a few years back that indicated that smokers actually SAVE taxpayers money by dying young. I have no problem with the government taxing goods that are costly to taxpayers. I have a serious problem with the government taxing goods that are unpopular and unhealthy (e.g., cigs) but end up saving taxpayers money. Why the hell should the government encourage me to live a certain life (e.g., by taxing and not taxing goods) if the net impact of my lifetsyle doesn't adversely affect society?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't know whether those who live unhealthy lives actually end up costing taxpayers more than those who live healthy lives. The people who exercise, eat right and who don't drink or smoke are likely to live longer lives than those who do not and, therefore, put a bigger strain on our Social Security Systems. Moreover, it might be less costly for someone to suffer mild health problems and die of a Big Mac-induced heart attack at 60, than live to be 95 and encounter many of the ailments that tend to affect the elderly.

I'd like to see some independent studies conducted into these kinds of economic issues. I read one a few years back that indicated that smokers actually SAVE taxpayers money by dying young. I have no problem with the government taxing goods that are costly to taxpayers. I have a serious problem with the government taxing goods that are unpopular and unhealthy (e.g., cigs) but end up saving taxpayers money. Why the hell should the government encourage me to live a certain life (e.g., by taxing and not taxing goods) if the net impact of my lifetsyle doesn't adversely affect society?

I sell insurance and we do sell life ins. If someone is over weight, smokes, etc... they charge a higher premium because their tables say that they will die at an earlier age. They have the numbers and can tell you if they write 1,000 policies for a healthy male age 35 they can tell you how many of them will die over the years. So they could say that in the first year ___ amount will die year two ____ amount will die etc... They know the numbers thats how they develop the rates. So if they charge a higher rate because they die earlier in life then we could assume they they are less of a cost to SS and other programs. My grandmother lived until age 97 and she cost the tax payers a bunch but she lived a pretty healthy life.