If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message t... "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. I was talking about drinking juice misses some of the nutrition of eating the whole fruit, including the fiber in the whole fruit. It was more like 10 hours, plus what I got in residency. Sorry for the confusion. Jeff |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m... "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? It was SARCASM, Jonathan, for heaven's sake! (FWIW, schools' failure to adequately teach our youth--to enable them to be considered "educated"--isn't merely an opinion; considerable research shows it to be a fact.) My experience is that my school, and the school district as a whole, are doing an outstanding job in providing an education. How do you know; i.e., on what are you basing your assessment? Standardized test scores? Graduation rates? Percentage of students furthering their education? Other means of comparison (to other schools/districts)? If your student body were switched, en masse, with that of an inner-city school (one in which the students hail from a considerably lower socioeconomic background) can you asset, with certainty, that *those* students would do as well? (IME, kids from families that place a premium on education--that have high expectations for their kids' educational success--tend to do well regardless of the school in which they find themselves.) Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that schools are doing a good job. Fine. We disagree. I think (public) schools, overall, are doing a mediocre job at best ...and that they're still declining. I am also of ther opinion that the role of the school extends well beyond simply teaching the three Rs. Sorry, that's too vague to respond to adequately; go ahead and enumerate, if you wish, just what other things (presumably more than offering additional subjects--"social studies," art, P.E., music, and the like) you think schools should/ought to be doing, i.e., what other roles they should be fulfilling. (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. Whoa! Sorry, Jonathan, but I'll have to ask you to provide a citation for taht figure. And when I speak of literacy, I'm talking about "functional literacy," a "...level of literacy which includes not only reading and writing skills but also numeracy skills. The skills must be sufficiently advanced to enable the individual to participate fully and efficiently in activities commonly occurring in his life situation that require a reasonable capability of communicating by written language." (http://www.census.gov.ph/data/techno...eflemms94.html) According to the 1994 National Adult Literacy Survey (a new one's due next year, I believe), 21-23% (40-44M) of US adults fell into the lowest level (1, of 5) of literacy while ~50M more were classified as "Level 2." (See http://nces.ed.gov//naal/resources/e....asp#litskills.) Maybe 97% of the adult population can sign their names on a document, but that doesn't mean (by a long shot!) that they *understand* the contents of the document (let alone the implications of affixing their signature to it). "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. No; questions regarding the propriety of schools entering exclusive contracts (esp. with the marketers of foods/beverages of questionable nutitional value) arose shortly after they came into vogue. 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. The largest district in my area apparently gets about $500,000 a year from their deal with Coca Cola Inc., enough, I'd guess, to pay the salaries of 17 teachers (or 5 administrators? g). News reports here didn't quote any Coke representatives, only a district spokeswoman--who made it very clear that the district wasn't about to ban the sale of Coke products: "...Colorado Springs largest school district doesn't agree with the [AAP] recommendation. Elaine Naleski, District 11's Director of Communications says the machines will stay where they are. She says removing the machines won't make any difference at all in the obesity of children, and adds exercise, and sensible eating is the best solution." (http://krdo.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=6959) 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. Exactly. Say it a little louder, so Utz, CBI, and Riley can hear you.g But as anything, "private" issues have societal externalities. Moreover, "private" issues set the standard moral and social fiber. Again, you're being terribly vague. (Love the liberal- [or is it edu-?] speak, though!... "externalities"..."social fiber"...) the gubmnt's only basis/rationale for intervention in this arena Is to respond to and support the will of the people. Which has been ascertained HOW, in this case? Via the whinings of small groups of people (POOFS--Parents of Overly Fat Students? Anti-corporate Greenies? The AAP?). These groups may be vocal, but to assert that they represent "the people" is stretching it a bit, don't you think? Look, these groups can protest/plead/write letters all they want. Where were they when their school boards were considering/discussing proposal to enter into exclusive, multi-year contracts to place soda machines in the schools, hmmm? Do you honestly think that voters in every district would vote to ban pop machines if *all* the facts--especially how much money the district was receiving and the uses to which it was, or could be, put--were known? I don't. 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. Not in my area, apparently. Then again, we're one of the "fittest" states in the nation (Colorado is the only state in the nation in which fewer than half of the adults are overweight), as well as one of the "best educated" (Colorado's number one in the nation for percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree); we're savvy enough to know that removing soda machines from schools would be merely a token gesture, and that it's not their presence that makes kids fat. 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. Fine. If you want to relinquish your/your high schooler's responsibility (for making healthy choices), so be it. (No wonder the ability to analyze/synthesize information is declining in the US!) (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. Not a good argument: If you check with your insurer, I bet you'll find that "lard-butts" are paying higher premiums (as do smokers) because of their condition. 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? Okay, sure they have a "right" to say virtually anything, to anyone, that they want. I've stated this on several occasions (threads). What I (yet again!) find outrageously silly, however, is that the AAP's apparent belief that it has some sort of special knowledge ("distinctive competence") regarding a widely discussed issue (weight/obesity, in this case). Don't like it when people stare at your wide load when you waddle down the street? Sorry, I glide ;-). (Well, not lately; I broke three bones in my left foot about 4 weeks ago...sigh) If anyone stares, I haven't noticed. (How would someone know if his/her rear is being stared at, anyway? Do you pirouette every few steps to see if you're being watched? Wouldn't that somewhat paranoid?) 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. Of what, exactly? That kids are getting fatter? That (some) kids consume a lot of "empty" calories in the form of soft drinks? That schools have/use alternative means (other than taxes) of generating revenue? 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 don't doubt that every state/locale has groups, even lone individuals, that have "issues" they'd like to see dealt with as *they'd* like. The nature of politics these days is that so few are actively involved that those who are get the attention of elected officials and bureaucrats. That doesn't mean that they (the activists) represent/reflect the wishes of the majority, however. I like the idea of how Maine responded to its citizens - and that, Ms JG, is the role of the gubmt. No, it's not. The role of government--any government--is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. Voters in southern states ("Dixie," perhaps, to you Yankees g) wanted racial segregation. Voters in Colorado wanted to impede homosexuals' use of the legal system. Voters in Texas wanted to make homosexual sodomy a crime... Get it? (You'll find many more examples by simply doing a Google search using "state laws, overturned, unconstitutional.") (Jeez, I haven't even brought myself to dropping the "n" yet!) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message et...
"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. No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies that fruit juices are somnehow better than sweetened soft drinks. I can't imagine you of all people would post in the absence of actually having read the AAP policy statement - or? I can't wait to see you dance around this one. Here is the relevant excerpt. "Soft drinks and fruit drinks are sold in vending machines, in school stores, at school sporting events, and at school fund drives. "Exclusive pouring rights" contracts, in which the school agrees to promote one brand exclusively in exchange for money, are being signed in an increasing number of school districts across the country,30 often with bonus incentives tied to sales.31 Although they are a new phenomenon, such contracts already have provided schools with more than $200 million in unrestricted revenue. Some superintendents, school board members, and principals claim that the financial gain from soft drink contracts is an unquestioned "win" for students, schools, communities, and taxpayers.31,32 Parents and school authorities generally are uninformed about the potential risk to the health of their children that may be associated with the unrestricted consumption of soft drinks. The decision regarding which foods will be sold in schools more often is made by school district business officers alone rather than with input from local health care professionals. Subsidized school lunch programs are associated with a high intake of dietary protein, complex carbohydrates, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables.16 The US Department of Agriculture, which oversees the National School Lunch Program, is concerned that foods with high sugar content (especially foods of minimal nutritional value, such as soft drinks) are displacing nutrients within the school lunch program, and there is evidence to support this.26 There are precedents for using optimal nutrition standards to create a model district-wide school nutrition policy,33 but this is not yet a routine practice in most states. The discussion engendered by the creation of such a policy would be an important first step in establishing an ideal nutritional environment for students." Now for the second part of your statement - In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than fruit juice. Let's do the math, shall we? 1 cup (8 oz) Apple juice - 117 calories plus 129% of the Vit C RDA (is that what they still call it?) OJ - 112 Club soda - 0 calories. Cola - 13 calories per ounce Lemon Lime (7-up) - 12 calories per ounce Not exactly a lot fewer - well, maybe club soda.... OK - so, now what. You say that the AAP endorses fruit drinks (not) and soda has a lot less calories than fruit juice (again, NOT.) That would be the two wrongs make a right spin? Go for it. js |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than fruit juice. No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks. The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems that result from overconsumption. http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices. In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than fruit juice. Let's do the math, shall we? 1 cup (8 oz) Apple juice - 117 calories plus 129% of the Vit C RDA (is that what they still call it?) OJ - 112 Club soda - 0 calories. Cola - 13 calories per ounce Lemon Lime (7-up) - 12 calories per ounce So in your examples, all sodas have few calories per ounce than all fruit juice. Plus Diet Coke and Diet 7-up have a lot fewer calories. IME, most soda vending machines carry at least one diet soda. Thanks for doing the math. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"CBI" wrote in message
om... 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. Gratuitous (and egregious) dig, Chris? I'm rather surprised. (Bad day? No dog to kick?) You know damn well (and if you claim that you don't, search the mkh archives) that I've said, repeatedly, the AAP can issue all the recommendations and policy statements it wants; I've never called for censorship. What I *have* stated is that I overwhelmingly find its recommendations to be incredibly redundant (= unnecessary), frequently silly (the "Duh!" recommendations), and often smacking of condescension. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message t... "Jonathan Smith" wrote The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than fruit juice. No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks. The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems that result from overconsumption. http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices. Are you claiming that "soft drinks" does not include fruit juices? If so, read: http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/htm...oductTypes.htm From Wordsmyth... 1. a nonalcoholic beverage, esp. one that is carbonated; soda or soda pop. From Encarta on-line: soft drink noun cold nonalcoholic drink: any nonalcoholic and usually carbonated beverage, usually served chilled And there are others. See Ask Jeeves for more definitions. However, all state the same thing, carbonation is NOT required for something to be a "soft drink". What IS required, is the absence of alcohol. Thus, the AAP statement clearly addresses fruit juices. Next dodge? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" wrote
in message news "Roger Schlafly" wrote in message t... "Jonathan Smith" wrote The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than fruit juice. No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks. The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems that result from overconsumption. http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices. Are you claiming that "soft drinks" does not include fruit juices? If so, read: http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/htm...oductTypes.htm G Stretching across the pond to grab a definiition you like, Mark? Rather pointless; US/UK terminology varies cosiderably. Want to discuss "biscuits"? From Wordsmyth... 1. a nonalcoholic beverage, esp. one that is carbonated; soda or soda pop. From Encarta on-line: soft drink noun cold nonalcoholic drink: any nonalcoholic and usually carbonated beverage, usually served chilled And there are others. See Ask Jeeves for more definitions. However, all state the same thing, carbonation is NOT required for something to be a "soft drink". What IS required, is the absence of alcohol. Thus, the AAP statement clearly addresses fruit juices. Next dodge? I honestly can't believe you're going to such extremes to try to prove Roger wrong. I use www.dictionary.com frequently (daily); two definitions for "soft drink" were returned: soft drink n. In both senses also called soda pop, also called regionally cold drink, drink, pop1, soda, soda water, tonic. 1.. A nonalcoholic, flavored, carbonated beverage, usually commercially prepared and sold in bottles or cans. 2.. A serving of this beverage. See Regional Note at tonic. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. (Guess you missed *that* one, eh? ...or did you find it and discard it?) and soft drink n : nonalcoholic beverage (usually carbonated) WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University I think you've just jumped into the lead for the 2004 "Quibble, quibble, quibble" (similar to a turkey's gobble) award! |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"JG" wrote in message . .. "Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" wrote in message news "Roger Schlafly" wrote in message t... "Jonathan Smith" wrote The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than fruit juice. No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks. The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems that result from overconsumption. http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices. Are you claiming that "soft drinks" does not include fruit juices? If so, read: http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/htm...oductTypes.htm G Stretching across the pond to grab a definiition you like, Mark? Rather pointless; US/UK terminology varies cosiderably. Want to discuss "biscuits"? Sometimes, you cracker me up. However, knowing your inclinations, I went further.... From Wordsmyth... 1. a nonalcoholic beverage, esp. one that is carbonated; soda or soda pop. From Encarta on-line: soft drink noun cold nonalcoholic drink: any nonalcoholic and usually carbonated beverage, usually served chilled And there are others. See Ask Jeeves for more definitions. However, all state the same thing, carbonation is NOT required for something to be a "soft drink". What IS required, is the absence of alcohol. Thus, the AAP statement clearly addresses fruit juices. Next dodge? I honestly can't believe you're going to such extremes to try to prove Roger wrong. I was doing the "Roger Shuffle". Remember his extensive writing on the definition of "addiction?" I use www.dictionary.com frequently (daily); two definitions for "soft drink" were returned: soft drink n. In both senses also called soda pop, also called regionally cold drink, drink, pop1, soda, soda water, tonic. 1.. A nonalcoholic, flavored, carbonated beverage, usually commercially prepared and sold in bottles or cans. 2.. A serving of this beverage. See Regional Note at tonic. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. (Guess you missed *that* one, eh? ...or did you find it and discard it?) As I pointed out, there were others. The American Heritage Dictionary, as returned by AskJeeves, any your source, also mentions that the beverage is *non-alcoholic*. Also, note that if you link to "cold drink" on AskJeeves, the AH dictionary returns: cold drink NOUN: 1. A drink, as of water, served or taken cold. 2. Chiefly Southern U.S. See soft drink. See Regional Note at tonic. Wow! Water. AFAIAC, Roger was being Roger and using a sematic argument. I point out that it is subject to interpretation. and soft drink n : nonalcoholic beverage (usually carbonated) WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University I think you've just jumped into the lead for the 2004 "Quibble, quibble, quibble" (similar to a turkey's gobble) award! |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message et...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote The AAP is raising public awareness, but it is also spreading misinformation, because it implies that soda is more fattening than fruit juice. No, Roger, you are by suggesting that the AAP recommendation implies that fruit juices are somehow better than sweetened soft drinks. The AAP *is* implying that. I refer to the AAP statement he AAP SAYS SOFT DRINKS IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED In a new policy statement, "Soft Drinks in Schools," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that school districts should consider restricting the sale of soft drinks to safeguard against health problems that result from overconsumption. http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jansoftdrinks.htm The complaint is about soft drinks, not fruit juices. The complaint is about sweetened drinks including fruit juices. You are shameless. Did you read the policy? Did you read the recommendation? Do you know what a sweetened drink IS? The recommendation was to remove vending machines that sold sweetened drinks - INCLUDING soft drnks and sweetened fruit juices. In fact, many sodas have a lot fewer calories than fruit juice. Let's do the math, shall we? 1 cup (8 oz) Apple juice - 117 calories plus 129% of the Vit C RDA (is that what they still call it?) OJ - 112 Club soda - 0 calories. Cola - 13 calories per ounce Lemon Lime (7-up) - 12 calories per ounce So in your examples, all sodas have few calories per ounce than all fruit juice. Plus Diet Coke and Diet 7-up have a lot fewer calories. IME, most soda vending machines carry at least one diet soda. Thanks for doing the math. So Roger thinks "a lot fewer" calories is 1 or 2 calories per ounce. Whoopeee. Nice spin. I can see your diet - well doc, I reduced my caloric intake A LOT - from 3000 to 2700 per day - why am I not losing weight? js |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Peds want soda ban
"Mark ProbertJanuary 8, 2004" wrote
in message news AFAIAC, Roger was being Roger and using a sematic argument. I point out that it is subject to interpretation. Quibblequibblequibble....quibblequibblequibble...q uibblequibblequibble.. .. Your argument that Roger was trying to what, pull one over on readers? ....play semantic games? ...shuffle? ...prevaricate? is both petty and unprovable. FWIW, when someone around here says "soft drink," it's taken by everyone I know to mean a carbonated, non-alcoholic beverage. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NJ Ledge - Spare the soda and strengthen the bones | [email protected] | Kids Health | 2 | September 18th 03 05:18 AM |
soda in schools - 8/28 - Portland [Maine] Press | [email protected] | Kids Health | 0 | August 28th 03 02:50 PM |
Carbonation nation [aspartame soda]: San Diego Union-Tribune: Nina | Rich Murray | Kids Health | 0 | August 19th 03 06:44 AM |
7/21 - Austin editorial - Changes in fatty foods a good recipe for a healthier America | Maurice | Kids Health | 1 | July 22nd 03 11:14 AM |
Philly public schools go soda free! email to your school board | Maurice | General | 1 | July 14th 03 01:05 AM |