Peds want soda ban

"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."

NEY YORK (CNS) The two largest professional organizations of teachers have
endorsed the proposed ban on carbonated drinks in school lunch rooms.

John Belcher, spokesman for the NTU stated, "Teachers have continually
complained that posdt-lunch eructations have been disruptive of their
teaching, and a major distraction in class."

The ban is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry whose sales of anti-gas
medciations would be affected.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"JG" wrote
Ah, those impetuous peds! ...

Here is the ped link. It says:

nutritious alternatives such as water, real fruit juices and low-fat milks
are available for vending, and can help preserve school revenues.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

However, the only type of water that wil lbe allowed in many schools is:

http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Wa...h_Fluoride.asp

"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

"Mark ProbertJanuary 5, 2004" wrote
nutritious alternatives such as water, real fruit juices and low-fat
milks
are available for vending, and can help preserve school revenues.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm
However, the only type of water that wil lbe allowed in many schools is:

http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Wa...h_Fluoride.asp

This subject is so goofy that it is hard to tell who is serious and who is
joking!

"JG" wrote
Excellent points. A "special report" from The Center For Consumer
Freedom, "Soda Ban Lacks Scientific Fizz"
(http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headl...ADLINE_ID=1953),
also mentions some *benefits* of having pop machine in schools.

Here is a silly and pseudo-scientific claim:

"JG" wrote:
Excellent points. A "special report" from The Center For Consumer
Freedom, "Soda Ban Lacks Scientific Fizz"
(http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headl...ADLINE_ID=1953),
also mentions some *benefits* of having pop machine in schools.

Here is a silly and pseudo-scientific claim:

"Each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soda increases a child's
risk for obesity by 60 percent,"

So 2 sodas, and the risk is up 120%. What do they mean by that?

I get the impression that the peds and some of these other anti-soda
folks think that the *carbonation* is fattening.

"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?

large. Weight (obesity) is a *private* issue; the gubmnt's only
basis/rationale for intervention in this arena is the claim that ...
The problem with talking to you, I'm belatedly realizing, that
it's never just one issue. First you're talking about soda, then
you're talking about total junk food bans, and next we're on
to the welfare state. Would it be okay if we talked about one
thing at a time?

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.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"JG" wrote
Ah, those impetuous peds! ...

Here is the ped link. It says:

nutritious alternatives such as water, real fruit juices and low-fat milks
are available for vending, and can help preserve school revenues.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm

Apparently the AAP also disapproves of schools selling whole milk,
and only wants kids drinking low-fat milk.

Where did the AAP say it disapproves of schools selling whole milk? Or are
you practicing mind-reading skills again?

It also thinks that the
schools should be selling water as a nutritious alternative. I always
thought that the schools let kids use the drinking fountain for free.
Maybe the AAP thinks that the schools can just put bottled water
in the coke machines, and kids will happily pay for it.

People happily pay for water in stores. Why not?

It explains that milk is more nutritious than soda because it
contains calcium, but why does it think that water is more nutritious
than soda? Soda is 98% water.

I think water is more nutritious than soda because it doesn't have hundreds
of empty calories.

If the AAP is really so concerned about the sugar in soda, why doesn't
it say that diet sodas are ok? And doesn't it realize that fruit juices
also have sugar in them?

The recommendation ends by saying that the vending machines
should be moved outside the cafeteria, so that kids buy their drinks
at times other than lunch.

Yet another wacky and unfounded AAP recommendation ...

Actually, founded on the fact that a large per centage of kids are
overweight and adults are getting fatter, too.

I, for one, like the AAP recommendations.

Jeff

"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.

"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.



How would you know?

http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/pin/