• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schools may ban chocolate milk over added sugar

How? The teachers would bring the kids in, put them in line, and that is it. You wouldn't force anyone to eat it sure, but they would have the food in front of them and less money in their pockets to buy other stuff. That is the way it was when I was in school. What is wrong with it?

Parents are plenty stupid these days, they typically spare them the lesson early about eating stuff that's good for you.

Besides kids make the short sided but rational choice of eating stuff that's loaded with empty calories.
 
Couldn't you just say that the regular dishes go before desert?

They could loop the line from Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall "If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding... how can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat" over the loudspeakers for 10 minutes straight... right after the lunch bell rings.

.
 
Last edited:
Not everyone is wired the same, and it is not for government to decide. Perhaps we should institute Atkins in schools, but some folks would freak about the content of that proven diet.

Why not leave people alone and let them and the parents decide? What is wrong with being an individual?

Well eating sugary food leads to a quick spike in energy and then a down, healthy food releases the enegy slower and steadier, it's something to do with the glycemic index, but it's basic human biology, while the level of the effects will vary between kids, the basic principle remains the same.

So why not let the parents decide what the kids learn, or how much homework they have, or if they can go to school naked?

Nobody has answered this question either: What do these kids do for food on weekends, holidays, winter and summer vacation without Mommy Dearest DC?

.

The parents look after them, as they're the parents responsibility then, schools have responsibility over the kids when they're there, duty of care and all that. Your question is ignorant.
 
That is where they regulate the food that you buy in grocery stores or just tax it more. But more and more they are just regulating all the bad away.


The government has been hugely culpable with their Food Pyramid for the obesity we have today. They are culpable for obesity of youth with their "school lunch programs".

They have done enough damage... piss off and leave us alone I say. We don't need your "help", and if someone needs assistance, let private charities do it. It surely won't cost the tax payer 16 billion and my bet is the result will be 10 times better.

.
 
Last edited:
Parents are plenty stupid these days, they typically spare them the lesson early about eating stuff that's good for you

All that can be done is show to eat. This is done by feeding them yourself.

Why not just issue pre-paid cards for other meals that have to be bought by the parents. You could have all deserts or any kind of "so called" unhealthy food that can only be obtained by the kids with the pre-paid card. I think that would solve the problem. The parents would have control of the situation and the kids could still have a chance to have delicious cake every once in awhile.

I think that is a good solution.
 
Well eating sugary food leads to a quick spike in energy and then a down, healthy food releases the enegy slower and steadier, it's something to do with the glycemic index, but it's basic human biology, while the level of the effects will vary between kids, the basic principle remains the same.
As someone who had to rely on nutrition for performance I know what you are saying, but it isn't government's job to do this. I also broke the rules too... big time because it suited me and my performance better.

The best diet would be Atkins; but that ain't gonna happen any time soon. It is diametrically opposed to the Government Food Pyramid and the brainwashing the low fat craze they fomented.

So why not let the parents decide what the kids learn, or how much homework they have,
Many do. Mine did. They let me decide how high or low I would go. Of course, back then if you went low you were going to repeat, and there was a stigma attached to repeating a grade or being a failure.

or if they can go to school naked?
You were doing fine until you got here... I'll chalk it up to Aussie humor.


The parents look after them, as they're the parents responsibility then, schools have responsibility over the kids when they're there, duty of care and all that. Your question is ignorant.
It's not ignorant. So... if parents can manage these other days, they can pack a lunch for the kids.

Problem Sol-ved (Inspecteur Clouseau speech pattern) without government intervention.

.
 
Last edited:
All that can be done is show to eat. This is done by feeding them yourself.

Why not just issue pre-paid cards for other meals that have to be bought by the parents. You could have all deserts or any kind of "so called" unhealthy food that can only be obtained by the kids with the pre-paid card. I think that would solve the problem. The parents would have control of the situation and the kids could still have a chance to have delicious cake every once in awhile.

I think that is a good solution.

I don't think school should bother with giving out cakes, candy and all that other crap.
Kids are there to learn, not to eat cake.
If parents are so ****ty that they can't provide their kids with a lunch, then the school takes up that responsibility.

The school should not make irresponsible decisions by giving out sweets and sugary crap.
 
I don't think school should bother with giving out cakes, candy and all that other crap.
Kids are there to learn, not to eat cake.
If parents are so ****ty that they can't provide their kids with a lunch, then the school takes up that responsibility.

The school should not make irresponsible decisions by giving out sweets and sugary crap.

Aren't they just a business though? I mean in the end, isn't even a public school a business? If the parents and the kids want to buy cake I think they should provide it.
 
I have to agree with who ever it was that pointed out that schools have reduced activities in schools because because someone might get hurt or another that I believe said they don't want anyone to be called a loser.

If you don't feel bad about being less than great why try to be better.

I grew up in what my grandson calls the olden days, but I helped raised him for the first 12 years of his life and he has the values his uncle the Executive Manager he has just gone in to Law enforcement which tells me the old ways still work.
 
Aren't they just a business though? I mean in the end, isn't even a public school a business? If the parents and the kids want to buy cake I think they should provide it.

That would be great if schools were treated that way. Where principals were real managers that sought the best teachers and had to negotiate with each individually and could cut dead weight from their staff. Would have to pay the good ones exceptionally to keep them.

Then we'd have a renaissance of education.

.
 
Aren't they just a business though? I mean in the end, isn't even a public school a business? If the parents and the kids want to buy cake I think they should provide it.

Unfortunately no.

Businesses exist with market prices and competition.
Current school policy masks the price with loads of subsidization from other non participating "customers" and they are a legal monopoly.
To call it a business would be perverse, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately no.

Businesses exist with market prices and competition.
Current school policy masks the price with loads of subsidization from other non participating "customers" and they are a legal monopoly.
To call it a business would be perverse, in my opinion.

Ok, bad word choice. D:
 
As someone who had to rely on nutrition for performance I know what you are saying, but it isn't government's job to do this. I also broke the rules too... big time because it suited me and my performance better.

The best diet would be Atkins; but that ain't gonna happen any time soon. It is diametrically opposed to the Government Food Pyramid and the brainwashing the low fat craze they fomented.

Though an Atkins Diet would negatively impact the already healthy kids if it was applied universally, whereas just feeding them healthy foods has only benefits. (except possibly taste:lol:)

Many do. Mine did. They let me decide how high or low I would go. Of course, back then if you went low you were going to repeat, and there was a stigma attached to repeating a grade or being a failure.

They decided how much homework you did, not how much homework you had, should parents be able to tell the school 'give my kid no homework so he passes by default'?

You were doing fine until you got here... I'll chalk it up to Aussie humor.

Yeah, that was humour.

It's not ignorant. So... if parents can manage these other days, they can pack a lunch for the kids.

Problem Sol-ved (Inspecteur Clouseau speech pattern) without government intervention.

.

I agree, I think parents should supply their kids with lunch, they do here, but if the school is supplying the food it should be healthy.
 
In London there have been proposals to have parents have their homes hooked into CCTV with government monitoring so if the parents forget to change a diaper that the child protective services can come in and bring the kids into the loving arms of foster parents. (where kids are far more likely to be abused and/ or put on pharmaceuticals like Prozac and all.)
Personally I think this is a terrible idea but you are being somewhat selective in your mentioning of this. Social Services aren't planning to put cameras in the homes of every parent. There has been a suggestion that where people have already proven themselves to be feckless parents and their children are considered to be at risk, then to give them one last chance, there should be some kind of monitoring of them showing their day to day tending of the child.

And let's not paint it as just 'not changing a nappy,' some babies are left in wet and rotting nappies for so long that they get ammonia burns on their skin, the suggestion is designed to prevent stuff like that.

I have to agree though that it would be a massive intrusion but you're description of the situation is somewhat disingenuous.
 
Though an Atkins Diet would negatively impact the already healthy kids if it was applied universally,
Wrong. And this is why government should be out of the restaurant business and schools out of the Food Police business.

Studies have shown, from Denmark to Universities in the US... Atkins is a positive.

They US Government busy bodies have done major damage with their Food Pyramid, and their school lunch programs haven't done much better... and this after 7+ decades. Piss off you failures I say.


whereas just feeding them healthy foods has only benefits. (except possibly taste:lol:)
Atkins is a healthy diet.


They decided how much homework you did, not how much homework you had, should parents be able to tell the school 'give my kid no homework so he passes by default'?
I thought you spoke about parents dictating how much homework I did irrespective of what the school gave.

I agree, I think parents should supply their kids with lunch, they do here, but if the school is supplying the food it should be healthy.
Chocolate milk will not end the world... nor will soda or candy.

.
 
But can you extend that argument to kids behaviour, clothing, or study habits? These things are regulated by schools already, and plus healthy food boosts your ability to concentrate compared to sugary foods, so there's also the argument that this could help kids grades.

Well, for better or worse the precedence has been set long ago...

The high school I went to when I was young had closed down the shooting range in the basement some 5-10 years earlier... that's right, kids were openly bringing guns to school. Then the schools crack down on "violence" then it becomes tag, then it's no touching, etc...

There's been a long process through which the school is putting itself into the role as the 'parent' of children, where the school tells kids what to think, how to act, how to be a good worker... it seems however, they no longer teach kids HOW to think.
 
For those recommending specific diet plans please keep in mind: children have much different nutritional needs than adults. They sugars should be eliminated, and only complex carbs should be provided, however a child's developing brain needs fat (the "good kind, primarily) in order to function properly and develop fully. Some of you might recall being told by your pediatrician that you should never give your child anything but whole milk. They say this because the fat in milk is so good for the child. Feeding a child tofu patties and steamed veggies with 1% milk isn't going to meet their nutritional needs.
 
Personally I think this is a terrible idea but you are being somewhat selective in your mentioning of this. Social Services aren't planning to put cameras in the homes of every parent. There has been a suggestion that where people have already proven themselves to be feckless parents and their children are considered to be at risk, then to give them one last chance, there should be some kind of monitoring of them showing their day to day tending of the child.

And let's not paint it as just 'not changing a nappy,' some babies are left in wet and rotting nappies for so long that they get ammonia burns on their skin, the suggestion is designed to prevent stuff like that.

I have to agree though that it would be a massive intrusion but you're description of the situation is somewhat disingenuous.

I suppose you are right in the sense that this isn't proposed for everyone, but if you consider that there aren't enough cameras to install in everyone's homes... So, start the intrusions with people that he majority would agree SHOULD have this intrusion as a precedence to create 'justifications' which will inevitably include everyone.
 
Wrong. And this is why government should be out of the restaurant business and schools out of the Food Police business.

Studies have shown, from Denmark to Universities in the US... Atkins is a positive.

They US Government busy bodies have done major damage with their Food Pyramid, and their school lunch programs haven't done much better... and this after 7+ decades. Piss off you failures I say.


Atkins is a healthy diet.

WTF are you even talking about? Keto diets force your body functions to become altered because... (and this is important) your body was not designed to use keytones as energy! Of all this piss poor idea's you have provided in this thread (starve the poor children included), this is probably the worst.
 
Look at the ingredients of chocolate milk and then get back to me.

And no, I don't drink white milk either.

Milk:It Does a Body Good:)
 
So are you saying we need a government program to correct this? Seems we need a government program to do everything else.

.

Huh? I said:
Originally Posted by DiAnna
One reason child obesity has skyrocked in the past couple of decades? Computer games and the internet.

*re-reads post* No, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about needing a government program to correct computer games and the internet. You should probably clean your glasses.
 
Huh? I said:

*re-reads post* No, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about needing a government program to correct computer games and the internet. You should probably clean your glasses.

You didn't, and you missed the point; went over your head.

Seeing as we need school lunches, I figured we also need a government program to regulate the amount of time kids spend in front of the computer too.


Then there is the following.

CHICAGO (CBS) — Chicago Public Schools is apologizing to a Chicago mother and her two young sons, ages 5 and 6, after they were denied breakfast because they came to schools wearing the wrong kind of shoes.

The Nicholson brothers only grab a quick snack before heading to class because they qualify for a full free breakfast at Adam Powell Grade School...

“I felt sad. We’re always supposed to have breakfast,” first-grader Noah Nicholson says.

The boy’s great aunt is livid.

“I don’t care if they had on orange shoes, they were in line to eat,” Robin Price says. “I’m not going to feed you because you have the wrong shoes? Shoes? No, no.”

No Breakfast For Kids Wearing ‘Wrong’ Shoes At Grade School « CBS Chicago
They snack before school, and I don't know this for sure but my bet is the mother too lazy to make breakfast. Just send the kids off to the government and let someone else take responsibility for her responsibility.

This entitlement crap is disgusting and sends a bad message. In this piece you have three generations wrapped up in the entitlement poison. Great Aunt, Mother and kids. (puke icon).

.
 
problem f-ing solved...
51H3feYVfzL._AA300_PIbundle-4,TopRight,0,0AA300_SH20_.jpg

What's that?
"No added sugar"
I have never heard of such a thing.
Must be a false advertisement marketing ploy because surely everything must contain sugar.
 
Back
Top Bottom