Peds want soda ban

"JG" wrote in message
t...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"JG" wrote
Straw man. I don't think it's anyone's, or any group's (private or
public), right to tell individuals *who pose no threat to others*
how to
live their lives...

Maybe the butterballs are drinking the diet sodas, and the skinny
kids are drinking the sugared sodas. Both will lose under the new
policy of banning soda.

The "science" behind studies proclaiming that soft drinks are "bad"
should have even Utz shaking his head. See "Hop on Pop: How soda is
being attacked in the media,"
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/artic...?ARTICLE_ID=76 (almost
three years old!) for details. Another good article, "Soft Drinks, Hard
Bias," (also almost three years old) can be found at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,12315,00.html.


I find these articles unconvincing. Adding 100 calories to a diet will add
about 1 pound of fat on each month. The fact is that kids, today, are too
fat and soda is a source of empty calories.

I also find the Fox article where it says there is no relationship between
soda consumption and obesity unconvincing. What that means is that fat kids
don't drink any more soda than thin kids. It does not mean that soda
consumption does not contribute to fat kids' obesity. Nor does it mean that
fat kids won't benefit from not drinking soda. In fact, if a fat person who
is not gaining weight reduces his consumption by 100 calories per day, he
will loose about 1 pound per month.

I have yet to see the arguement that juice or soda (you guys hit the nail on
the head when you said that the nutritional value of juice is about the same
as soda) is a necessary part of the diet. If parents want to send soda to
school with their kids (and save money, because the cost of soda in the
grocery store is almost always cheaper than the price in school, I think),
that's fine. But I think it makes good sense to let the parent make the
choice.

Jeff

Jeff
There isn't even much nutritional difference between sugared soda
and fruit juice. If calcium were really the concern, the school could
hand out calcium pills.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
news
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote
It may evolve into schools being charged with the task of seeing
that kids slim down, but it doesn't seem crazy to start with
not allowing schools to fatten kids up for cash.

If slimming down is really the objective, then the peds/nannies
could advocate just putting diet sodas in the vending machines.
Milk, soda, and fruit juice can all be equally fattening -- why
single out soda?

Perhaps Peds should do more to get effective physical education in schools
as well. Clearly, the AAP had suggested that PE should be part of every
school day. Perhaps they should push for this as well. The difference, of
course, is that you can remove a soda machine from school easily; you can't
add a gym easily, especially in poor elementary schools in ubran areas where
land is expensive and money hard to come by.

Jeff

(...)

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jeff" wrote
I think water is more nutritious than soda because it doesn't have
hundreds
of empty calories.

Too bad they don't teach nutrition in medical school.


They do. There is no nutritional value to soda. Just sugar.

Jeff

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message et...

If slimming down is really the objective, then the peds/nannies
could advocate just putting diet sodas in the vending machines.
Milk, soda, and fruit juice can all be equally fattening -- why
single out soda?

I knew it had to happen someday - I agree with you.

Actually, I half-agree. I agree that replacing soda with
fruit juice is pointless, since fruit juice is equally sugary
and if it's the kind of 'fruit juice' that kids love such as
Snapple it might even be more caloric than the soda. I tend
to think that milk isn't as much of a problem. Since it
contains both fat and protein, it's probably much more filling
than sugar water, so I have more trouble picturing kids gulping
down much more than they need.

Trying to ban soda on the pretense of fighting obesity is indeed
an example of a larger problem. Carbonation does not cause
obesity. The peds either need to learn some basic science, or
they are trying to advance a political agenda on a medical
pretense.

If I'm reading the articles right, calling it a 'ban on soda'
isn't really accurate. It's a ban on selling soda in schools.
I don't think (although I welcome correction) that anyone has
suggested that kids be banned from bringing whatever drinks
they want to school with them. There's just no need
for schools to offer an unlimited supply of sugar water
at a profit.

Beth

"Jeff" wrote:
I think water is more nutritious than soda because it doesn't have
hundreds of empty calories.
Too bad they don't teach nutrition in medical school.
They do. There is no nutritional value to soda. Just sugar.

You prove my point. Sugar is a nutrient.

"Jeff" wrote
course, is that you can remove a soda machine from school easily; you
can't
add a gym easily, especially in poor elementary schools in ubran areas
where
land is expensive and money hard to come by.

Many schools are eliminating PE and recess, even tho they have
the facilities.

"JG" wrote in message
t...

Schools (administrators, faculty), generally speaking, are
failing at
the *one* task with which few would disagree they're
charged: educating
our youth. (I'd settle for simply producing a literate
populace;
"education," IMO, is a personal endeavor.) We (society)
have already
added students' mental/psychological well-being to list of
things we
expect schools to achieve/ensure, and now, apparently, the
APA wants to
charge schools with the task of seeing that kids slim down
by
(initially)--tada!--banning the sale of soft drinks.

Is this really a new charge? Physical education and hygiene
classes have been mandated for quite some time. besides,
does removing the vending machines in soe way distract or
detract fromt he schools mission to educate?

APA wouldn't prefer that schools totally ban "unhealthy"
foods/beverages
from campuses? ("This school is a 'junk food'-free
zone.")

Would is be so bad if they did?


Weight (obesity) is a *private* issue; the gubmnt's only
basis/rationale for intervention in this arena is the
claim that
weight-induced health problems (diabetes, cardiovascular
disease, etc.)
among those receiving public assistance (Medicaid,
Medicare) impose a
financial burden on taxpayers. (This is a separate
subject open to
debate. Perhaps public assistance recipients who have a
weight-induced
disease will die younger because of it, thus potentially
saving "us" $$$
in the long run.)

All that is well and good but really a nonsequitur to the
issue of whether the school should be able to remove the
vending machines. The AAP is asking the schools to do this
voluntarily. Surelyyou do not claim that the school is
obligated to keep them or that they should shy away from
simple measures that might help the well being of the
students.


At any rate, gubmnt health programs should never
have been instituted in the first place. (Anyone care to
cite just
where in the Constitution "public assistance"--publicly
funded
assistance to *individuals*--is addressed?)

The Constitution was never meant to be an exhaustive list.
That is why the put in a process to pass further laws.


Straw man. I don't think it's anyone's, or any group's
(private or
public), right to tell individuals *who pose no threat to
others* how to
live their lives (let alone force them adhere to arbitrary
dictates!)--
do you? Each "individual butterball" must live, or die,
by his/her
choices. The gubmnt (and food manufacturers/distributors,
including
schools) hasn't made anyone fat; it's not its
responsibility to make
anyone healthy, either.

No, but it does not mean that they should sell the kids the
stuff or that they shouldn't decide not to.

--
CBI, MD

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
news
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote
It may evolve into schools being charged with the task
of seeing
that kids slim down, but it doesn't seem crazy to start
with
not allowing schools to fatten kids up for cash.

If slimming down is really the objective, then the
peds/nannies
could advocate just putting diet sodas in the vending
machines.
Milk, soda, and fruit juice can all be equally
fattening -- why
single out soda?

I'm with you on the juice part. I would argue that skim milk
and water would be good choices. if the kids can't live with
eitherof those they are always free to bring in other
things.

--
CBI, MD

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jeff" wrote:
I think water is more nutritious than soda because
it doesn't have
hundreds of empty calories.
Too bad they don't teach nutrition in medical school.
They do. There is no nutritional value to soda. Just
sugar.

You prove my point. Sugar is a nutrient.

Yes, but it would only be of any value to someone who is
calorie deficient.

--
CBI, MD

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

I have yet to see the arguement that juice or soda (you guys hit the nail on
the head when you said that the nutritional value of juice is about the same
as soda) is a necessary part of the diet.

I thought juice contained more vitamins and other nutritional content
than sodas. When you discuss the nutritional value of juice, are you
talking about the non-carbonated commercially available drinks such as
'Tropicana Twister' or 'Juicy Juice' which are essentially
juice-flavored sugar water? Are fresh-squeezed orange juice and
grapefruit juice with nothing added (favorites of mine) equally poor
beverage choices? I though they were nearly as nutritious as eating
the entire fruit (minus peel of course).

Thanks.