Peds want soda ban

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle the nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians should
contact local superintendents and school board members and "emphasize the
notion that every school in every district shares a responsibility for the
nutritional health of its students."

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle the
nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians should
contact local superintendents and school board members and "emphasize
the
notion that every school in every district shares a responsibility for
the
nutritional health of its students."

Ah, those impetuous peds! Don't they realize that "every school in
every district" is simply too darn busy attending to its responsibility
regarding the educational "health" of its students?!?
......er....um....never mind....

"JG" wrote in message
t...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle the
nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians should
contact local superintendents and school board members and "emphasize
the
notion that every school in every district shares a responsibility for
the
nutritional health of its students."

Ah, those impetuous peds! Don't they realize that "every school in
every district" is simply too darn busy attending to its responsibility
regarding the educational "health" of its students?!?
.....er....um....never mind....

I guess this is a situation of where school districts should teach by
example.

And I agree 100% with the AAP on this one.

Jeff

"JG" wrote in message et...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle the
nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians should
contact local superintendents and school board members and "emphasize
the
notion that every school in every district shares a responsibility for
the
nutritional health of its students."

Ah, those impetuous peds! Don't they realize that "every school in
every district" is simply too darn busy attending to its responsibility
regarding the educational "health" of its students?!?
.....er....um....never mind....

Um, okay, I'm missing the huge affront here. I don't really
see depriving kids of soda-purchasing opportunities during school
hours as limiting their freedom significantly. As long as
it would be the right of a parent to send a soda to school
with the child, it wouldn't bother me.

JG, do you think anything ought to be done by any sort of
public servant about the way Americans are ballooning into
giant butterballs? If you believe that this is all a matter
of personal responsibility, can you describe a plausible
chain of events that leads to each individual butterball
waking up one morning and saying, "Gosh! It's time to
change my entire way of life! No more fast food, no more
TV... I'm going to take responsibility for my life and
start eating healthier food, spending more time exercising,
and teaching my kids to do the same!" Or is it just that
you think anyone who doesn't do the above is better off
prematurely ill or dead?

Beth

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
et...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle the
nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians
should
contact local superintendents and school board members and
"emphasize
the
notion that every school in every district shares a responsibility
for
the
nutritional health of its students."

Ah, those impetuous peds! Don't they realize that "every school in
every district" is simply too darn busy attending to its
responsibility
regarding the educational "health" of its students?!?
.....er....um....never mind....

Um, okay, I'm missing the huge affront here.

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.

I don't really
see depriving kids of soda-purchasing opportunities during school
hours as limiting their freedom significantly. As long as
it would be the right of a parent to send a soda to school
with the child, it wouldn't bother me.

Nor I. Do you honestly think, however, that school district
administrators/personnel wouldn't bemoan the lost revenue, or that the
APA wouldn't prefer that schools totally ban "unhealthy" foods/beverages
from campuses? ("This school is a 'junk food'-free zone.")

JG, do you think anything ought to be done by any sort of
public servant about the way Americans are ballooning into
giant butterballs?

What's a "public servant"? g

Government can, and should, play a role in safeguarding *public* health.
I have little objection to bureaucrats monitoring and takng (LEGAL)
measures to mitigate situations that pose a threat to the public at
large. 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.) 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?)

If you believe that this is all a matter
of personal responsibility, can you describe a plausible
chain of events that leads to each individual butterball
waking up one morning and saying, "Gosh! It's time to
change my entire way of life! No more fast food, no more
TV... I'm going to take responsibility for my life and
start eating healthier food, spending more time exercising,
and teaching my kids to do the same!" Or is it just that
you think anyone who doesn't do the above is better off
prematurely ill or dead?

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.

"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 (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.

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.

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
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.

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.

"JG" wrote in message
t...
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
et...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/education/05SODA.html

Soft drinks should be eliminated from schools to help tackle the
nation's
obesity epidemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
In a new policy statement, the academy says that pediatricians
should
contact local superintendents and school board members and
"emphasize
the
notion that every school in every district shares a responsibility
for
the
nutritional health of its students."

Ah, those impetuous peds! Don't they realize that "every school in
every district" is simply too darn busy attending to its
responsibility
regarding the educational "health" of its students?!?
.....er....um....never mind....

Um, okay, I'm missing the huge affront here.

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.

I don't really
see depriving kids of soda-purchasing opportunities during school
hours as limiting their freedom significantly. As long as
it would be the right of a parent to send a soda to school
with the child, it wouldn't bother me.

Nor I. Do you honestly think, however, that school district
administrators/personnel wouldn't bemoan the lost revenue, or that the
APA wouldn't prefer that schools totally ban "unhealthy" foods/beverages
from campuses? ("This school is a 'junk food'-free zone.")

JG, do you think anything ought to be done by any sort of
public servant about the way Americans are ballooning into
giant butterballs?

What's a "public servant"? g

Government can, and should, play a role in safeguarding *public* health.
I have little objection to bureaucrats monitoring and takng (LEGAL)
measures to mitigate situations that pose a threat to the public at
large. 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.

Wrong! Overwieght poses a large public burden. Fat people become fat
Medicare recipients. Obesity is a very expensive health problem. In
addition, obesity is a major cause of sickness, death, lost mobility
(arthritis), stroke, high blood pressure, etc.

I don't know what the gubmnt is. Perhaps you should get a dictionary and
look up the right word.

Anyway, because of the horrible effects of obesity on the body, the people
(i.e., government) has a major responsibility to fight obesity.

(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.)

No. It doesn't work out that way.

At any rate, gubmnt health programs should never
have been instituted in the first place.

Correct. What the government should have done is instituted universal health
care. There are only two countries without universal health ca The US and
South Africa.

(Anyone care to cite just
where in the Constitution "public assistance"--publicly funded
assistance to *individuals*--is addressed?)

The right to life, liberty and happiness?

Besides, as far as I am concerned, what the government is allowed to do is
determined by the people, who decided that they want to support medicare and
medicaid (through their elected representatives).

If you believe that this is all a matter
of personal responsibility, can you describe a plausible
chain of events that leads to each individual butterball
waking up one morning and saying, "Gosh! It's time to
change my entire way of life! No more fast food, no more
TV... I'm going to take responsibility for my life and
start eating healthier food, spending more time exercising,
and teaching my kids to do the same!" Or is it just that
you think anyone who doesn't do the above is better off
prematurely ill or dead?

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?

I disagree. There is no threat posed by me having grass that is 12 inches
high in my yard, but it is clear that members of a community have the right
to pass an ordanance stating requirements for grass cutting.

Each "individual butterball" must live, or die, by his/her
choices.

We have also mandated that people where seat belts. Good laws, if you ask
me. In addition, we have mandated that doctors report to the proper
athorities that a patient is in danger of committing suicide, even if the
patient is a risk only to himself.

The government has a vested interest in assuring the health of its citizens
(again, this has been supported by various state supreme courts, and I
believe the US Supreme court).

The gubmnt (and food manufacturers/distributors, including
schools) hasn't made anyone fat; it's not its responsibility to make
anyone healthy, either.

The various governments also have a responsibility not to provide dangerous
items their most vulnerable members, the kids. This, IMHO, includes no
providing unhealthy foods and drinks, like soda, which has no nuritional
value at all.

jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"JG" wrote in message
t...

[...]

Government can, and should, play a role in safeguarding *public*
health.
I have little objection to bureaucrats monitoring and takng (LEGAL)
measures to mitigate situations that pose a threat to the public at
large. 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.

Wrong! Overwieght poses a large public burden. Fat people become fat
Medicare recipients.

Uh, Jeff, that was my point. The health problems are private--those of
an *individual*--even though the cost is often borne by taxpayers (i.e.,
when the problems befall a Medicare/Medicaid recipient). As I've often
stated, I don't believe government, as a rule, should be providing
health benefits. (Exceptions should be made, of course, for those
injured in the course of duty to the country [e.g., the military] or
because of government dictates [e.g., mandatory vaccination].) As I've
also stated, I believe our overall health would improve if individuals
bore all, or most of, their health-care costs. Private insurance is
fine; such insurers can impose various conditions; e.g., weight limits,
on subscribers. (They could, conceivably, base premiums on weight,
requiring higher payments from those in various categories--overweight,
obese, morbidly obese, etc.) Premiums currently paid by employers
should be taxed at the same rate as income. (Group savings could still
be reralized.) As for the indigent, I've no doubt "paupers' hospitals,"
funded by various civic/medical/charitable groups, could meet their
needs.

Obesity is a very expensive health problem. In
addition, obesity is a major cause of sickness, death, lost mobility
(arthritis), stroke, high blood pressure, etc.

No one's denying this. The question at hand is who should pay the
costs.

I don't know what the gubmnt is. Perhaps you should get a dictionary
and
look up the right word.

Search the archives, Jeff. I've already explained my use of term.

Anyway, because of the horrible effects of obesity on the body, the
people
(i.e., government) has a major responsibility to fight obesity.

If the government weren't paying the costs (of *individuals'* medical
problems), it'd have no involvement--"responsibility"--whatsoever.

(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.)

No. It doesn't work out that way.

Show me the studies/research. It often "works out" that way with
smokers...

At any rate, gubmnt health programs should never
have been instituted in the first place.

Correct. What the government should have done is instituted universal
health
care. There are only two countries without universal health ca The
US and
South Africa.

We're close, Jeff, damn close... Health is *not* a right!

(Anyone care to cite just
where in the Constitution "public assistance"--publicly funded
assistance to *individuals*--is addressed?)

The right to life, liberty and happiness?

Look up "pursuit," Jeff ...and "life" is *life*; an individual on his
deathbed, wracked with, say, full-blown AIDS, still has life. The
Constitution doesn't say "a HIGH QUALITY of life."

Besides, as far as I am concerned, what the government is allowed to
do is
determined by the people, who decided that they want to support
medicare and
medicaid (through their elected representatives).

The progams we have now, IMO, are a far cry from what the initial
legislators intended/envisioned. (But that's what happens when
bureacrats get their hands on legislation...)

If you believe that this is all a matter
of personal responsibility, can you describe a plausible
chain of events that leads to each individual butterball
waking up one morning and saying, "Gosh! It's time to
change my entire way of life! No more fast food, no more
TV... I'm going to take responsibility for my life and
start eating healthier food, spending more time exercising,
and teaching my kids to do the same!" Or is it just that
you think anyone who doesn't do the above is better off
prematurely ill or dead?

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?

I disagree. There is no threat posed by me having grass that is 12
inches
high in my yard, but it is clear that members of a community have the
right
to pass an ordanance stating requirements for grass cutting.

Sure, and you likely had a chance to vote, directly, on it (i.e., it's
not likely some town hall busybody one day decided, on a whim, to put
such an ordinance on the books.)

Each "individual butterball" must live, or die, by his/her
choices.

We have also mandated that people where seat belts. Good laws, if you
ask
me. In addition, we have mandated that doctors report to the proper
athorities that a patient is in danger of committing suicide, even if
the
patient is a risk only to himself.

"We" have also mandated that doctors report adverse vaccine reactions,
even if a parent only suspects that one has occurred (and tells the
physician about it)... (So your point is???)

The government has a vested interest in assuring the health of its
citizens
(again, this has been supported by various state supreme courts, and I
believe the US Supreme court).

Government can't have a "vested interest" in anything, Jeff (look up the
term "vested interest"; the government is not an individual), nor should
it be involved, in any manner, with the health of any individual! An
individual's weight poses no *public health* problem!

The gubmnt (and food manufacturers/distributors, including
schools) hasn't made anyone fat; it's not its responsibility to make
anyone healthy, either.

The various governments also have a responsibility not to provide
dangerous
items their most vulnerable members, the kids.

Citation, please? (Don't bother looking in the Constitution...) Are
you indirectly asserting that a bottle of Coke or Pepsi is an inherently
unsafe product? ....gimme a break!

This, IMHO, includes no
providing unhealthy foods and drinks, like soda, which has no
nuritional
value at all.

"Making available" (or "not making unavailable") a product isn't the
same as forcing an individual to use/consume a product! (Guns per se
don't kill people; Pepsi per se doesn't make peolpe fat.)

"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