Peds want soda ban

"abacus" wrote
"Jeff" wrote
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.

You can buy soda that is 100% fruit juice. Not reconstituted, but
straight fruit juice with added carbonation. It is the carbonation that
makes it soda. I don't know any, but there are probably also sodas
with added vitamins and other supposedly healthy additives.

Meanwhile, there are juices like Kool-Aid that are just artificially
colored and flavored sugar water. You can probably get them with
artificial sweeteners instead of sugar, I don't know.

So I happen to think that some sodas are a lot better than some
juices. If you think that all juices are better than all sodas, then
you must think that there is something wrong with the carbonation.
But the carbonation is completely harmless.

"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.)

"abacus" wrote in message
om...
"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.

That's correct. However, not that much more. If you want more nutritional
content, eat an apple instead of drinking apple juice.

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?

IMHO, only slightly better.

I though they were nearly as nutritious as eating
the entire fruit (minus peel of course).

Well, in the case of apples, you can eat the entire fruit, minus the stem.
But you are still missing some nuitrition, including fiber.

Jeff

Thanks.

"JG" wrote in message et...
"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 don't agree and if you begin your argument with an opinion, what
does that do for the logic? My experience is that my school, and the
school district as a whole, are doing an outstanding job in providing
an education. Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that schools
are doing a good job. I am also of ther opinion that the role of the
school extends well beyond simply teaching the three Rs.

(I'd settle for simply producing a literate populace;

The literacy rate in the US is 97% - and considering the large
immigrant population, this is a pretty high number.

"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.

Some schools didn't wait for the APA to address the issue of nutrition
in schools.

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.")

Lost revenue? The ones crying are the candy and soda manufacturers.
Granted, schools do receive a small percentage of sales and get some
copmpensation for allowing advertising. Hardly enough to fund the
schools operating budget. It's Pepsi and Mars that are raising the
biggest barriers.

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;

Health, with the possible exception of communicable diseases, is a
private issue. But as anything, "private" issues have societal
externalities. Moreover, "private" issues set the standard moral and
social fiber.

the gubmnt's only
basis/rationale for intervention in this arena

Is to respond to and support the will of the people.

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.

If that's what you believe the only rationale to be, you missed the
bigger picture. Many (most?) parents prefer NOT to have junk food and
soda readily available in schools where they may have limited ability
to control their childs access. I can do it when we are at home and
when we are out as a family - but in school, I need some help. And
that is the ROLE of the school board, the state and local government,
and the parent teacher association.

(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?)

My PRIVATE health insurance premiums are in part driven by the group
risk - and that includes the lard butt families.

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!)--

The APA makes recommendations. So, what is it about freedom of speach
that bothers you so much? Don't like it when people stare at your
wide load when you waddle down the street?

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.

It is their responsibility to support the needs of the people they
represent. In the case of the APA, it is a recommendation that raises
public awareness. In the case of the state of Maine, the mandate came
from a student/parent/nutrition committee - this wasn't something some
loud mouth bureaucrat dreamed up - it was grass roots.

I like the idea of how Maine responded to its citizens - and that, Ms
JG, is the role of the gubmt.

js

"JG" wrote in message ...
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm not so sure about this. I think that when a problem affects a
large proportion of the individuals within a society, it's reasonable
for the government of that society to consider measures it can take to
reduce the problem.

We have also mandated that people where seat belts. Good laws, if you
ask
me.

Bad laws if you ask me. Sets a precendent for government involvement
in minor individual choices.

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!

Perhaps 'vested interest' isn't the right term, but it does seem to me
that a government has an interest in the overall health of the
population. An individual's weight is not a *public health* problem,
but when 30% or more of the population is obese, I think that does
constitute a *public health* problem - at least to the extent of
making people more aware of both the potential danger and encouraging
better health habits.

"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.)

No, making available doesn't force people to use the product, but
availability does affect consumption. As a formerly obese person (I'm
a lifetime member of weight watchers) I have some experience with what
is required to lose weight and to maintain weight loss. One of the
first things that a new member of weight watchers learns is to remove
temptation as much as possible. If you really really really want that
candy bar or soda pop - ok. But if you have to get in your car and
drive to the store to purchase it, you're much less likely to consume
it than if you have it in your home, easily available for consumption.

Reading this thread, sounds like all that has been done is a
suggestion that vending machines either be removed from public schools
or poor choices replaced with better ones. That's not the government
mandating that kids can't have soda pop, it's just suggesting a way to
facilitate kids making better choices.

I'm not sure why you see that as a problem. When I was in school, the
only soda machine in the school was in the teachers lounge which the
kids did not have access to.

Beth

"Jonathan Smith" wrote
It is their responsibility to support the needs of the people they
represent. In the case of the AAP, it is a recommendation that raises
public awareness. In the case of the state of Maine, the mandate came
from a student/parent/nutrition committee - this wasn't something some
loud mouth bureaucrat dreamed up - it was grass roots.

The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading
misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than
fruit juice. In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than
fruit juice.

"Jeff" wrote
But you are still missing some nuitrition, including fiber.

So now you think that water and fiber have nutrition, but sugar
does not! You must not have even received 5 minutes of
nutrition instruction in medical school.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...
"abacus" wrote in message
om...
"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.

That's correct. However, not that much more. If you want more nutritional
content, eat an apple instead of drinking apple juice.

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?

IMHO, only slightly better.

I though they were nearly as nutritious as eating
the entire fruit (minus peel of course).

Well, in the case of apples, you can eat the entire fruit, minus the stem.
But you are still missing some nuitrition, including fiber.

Well, I understand that you do lose fiber when consuming juice rather
than the entire fruit, but are any other vitamins and nutrients
eliminated by consuming the juice rather than the entire fruit? If so,
what?

If fresh squeezed 100% orange juice is a poor choice of beverage only
slightly better than soda pop, do you also consider eating an orange a
poor choice of snack, only slightly better than a candy bar or potato
chips?

Jeff, I understand your point, but we need to look at this from a
different angle. We shouldn't teach children to hoarde soda when they
can get it, we should teach them that to lead a healthy life, they
need to drink it in moderation. It does no good whatsoever to take
away peoples rights to consume soda, why should we do that? The kids
will A. bring their own B. buy it at stores and C. begin to view
soda as rebelious, (which we know is not a good thing w/ kids). We
need to teach kids the way to drink these things. Juices have JUST as
many empty calories, along w/ sports drinks. It is true. Don't
remove the drinks, inform the kids.

(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
"JG" wrote in message et...

If that's what you believe the only rationale to be, you missed the
bigger picture. Many (most?) parents prefer NOT to have junk food and
soda readily available in schools where they may have limited ability
to control their childs access. I can do it when we are at home and
when we are out as a family - but in school, I need some help. And
that is the ROLE of the school board, the state and local government,
and the parent teacher association.

Good point.

Roger likes to focus on the sugar aspect but there is also caffeine to
discuss. The bottom line is that if the school offers vending machines
with junk food it signifiantly detracts from the parents rights to try
to guide the child's dietary choices.


The APA makes recommendations. So, what is it about freedom of speach
that bothers you so much?

That is the million dollar question, isn't it? She has a pattern of
only being in favor of free speach that she agrees with. Apparently,
everyone else should just zip it.

--
CBI