sarahmichigan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sarahmichigan) wrote2006-05-04 11:43 am
sarahmichigan) wrote2006-05-04 11:43 am
Entry tags:
Interesting discussion
Though it was posted on a local community, the general topic of whether soda pop machines should be in grade schools and junior highs was interesting and spirited.
I, of course, had to chime in with my two cents about how the so-called obesity epidemic is overstated. Despite that, I'm pretty much in favor of keeping pop machines out of grade schools, as long as the rules don't infringe on parents' rights to send pop with kids in their brown bag lunches.
http://community.livejournal.com/ann_arbor_ypsi/955033.html
I, of course, had to chime in with my two cents about how the so-called obesity epidemic is overstated. Despite that, I'm pretty much in favor of keeping pop machines out of grade schools, as long as the rules don't infringe on parents' rights to send pop with kids in their brown bag lunches.
http://community.livejournal.com/ann_arbor_ypsi/955033.html
no subject
no subject
no subject
I saw this and had to ask for clarification, if I could... how overstated do you feel it is?
I know our (meaning mostly American here) culture has some major body-image issues that need to be nuked, don't get me wrong... but it (now really meaning American culture) also has some seriously out-of-whack health issues, too. It's hard to look at both problems at once.
Just saw that and curious if I could ask for your ideas more in depth. It's an interesting dichotomy I never considered until I saw your comment.
no subject
At 210, my BMI would be 28.5, on the high end of "overweight"; at 230, I'd be obese, as I am now. I'm certainly not obese, and wasn't even obese at my highest weight (275); the BMI table wants me at or below 183, which is absolutely ludicrous (my doctor agrees).
On the other hand, while I think that the BMI chart is garbage and agree with Sarah that there's a lot of hype to the obesity epidemic, I do think that there are a lot of unhealthy attitudes in this country. Weight aside, we drink far too much sugared soda, and any drive to minimize children's access to it outside the control of parents is, I think, a good thing. Parents can control whether or not their children take soda to school, but they can't nearly as easily control what their kids buy at school.
no subject
Well said. I'm a parent, and this is the approach I would advocate.
no subject
Yes, fat AND thin Americans have a lot of bad habits, but not all fat people are unhealthy and not all thin people are healthy.
An egregious case of where the "War on Obesity" swerves into fat discrimination: schools that are considering sending home BMI reports on report cards and recommending parents examine their child's eating and exercise habits. A lot of schools are ONLY recommending this for fat kids, even though a lot of skinny kids eat crap and don't exercise, and a lot of fat kids are very active in sports and eat well.
I can comment in more detail, but I don't know how much you want to get into this.
no subject
kids are very active in sports and eat well
::raises her hand tentaively:: Me.
no subject
In short, I think BMI is crap, too. It doesn't take into account a lot of things. I think our bodies tend to hover at different shapes even when perfectly healthy... it's just the nature of where they want to be. I don't think it's possible to unilaterally gague that with just a person's gender and height, even with the "ranges" they give.
Re the school stuff... that's a hard call. Again, I don't dig on BMI, but the question becomes how can you get a quick metric on someone's health? "Overweightness" (by BMI) could be being viewed as a quick and easy "warning sign"... but that brings up the question of is it a good one? With all the eating disorders going around, and our advertising culture imprinting and sexualizing children at younger and younder ages, it seems like we should be looking for something that would catch these kinds of habits as well. BMI doesn't seem so strict on the "underweight" end.
Anyway, I'll read more. Interesting stuff...
...and not all thin people are healthy.
Rings up a favorite line from the album i'm checking out right now:
"It's not like getting drunk;
you can't get fat on junk..."
- "Punk Junkies From New York", Jim's Big Ego
no subject
no subject
I also think juice machines shoudl be kept out of elementary schools.
no subject
There's no existing parental right like that that has the potential to be infringed upon, that I'm aware of. If rules did exclude all sugary pop from school property--under a "zero tolerance" policy on food/drink deemed to be junk, if you will--and the school system could justify their policy (from a perspective of "state interest in public health" perhaps) to the courts, then it's possible that some forms of pop might be outlawed from school property.
On the other hand, such a hypothetical case might result in a court coming down on the side of parents and establishing a right to privacy "within the brown bag". :)
This would be interesting, wouldn't it?
no subject
There's a gray area with safety: they can't send kids to school with marijuana brownies, for instance.
The issue of "peanut-free" schools is kind of borderline for me. I understand trying to keep kids with those allergies safe, but keeping other kids from having a PB&J at lunch forever and ever seems like overkill.
no subject
But, sure enough, this move by the schools about pop is approaching that area. Today, it's about outlawing the "bad" pop in the vending machines "in the interests of healthy children" . . . tomorrow, will it be about outlawing all the "bad" pop, and the "bad" foods, altogether on school property, even in brown bags--don't even bring your bag to school, just eat what the state is providing in the lunchroom--"in the interests of healthy children"?
Interesting subject, "peanut-free" schools. My girlfriend's friends fought like hell, and won, their child's elementary and middle school to be peanut free. They are preparing to fight, if necessary, for the high school to be made peanut-free, and I've heard they are pleased that they will have a likely ally in the principal, whose daughter has severe peanut allergies as well.
I think such people (not me, mind you) would get highly emotional with you for using words like "borderline" and "overkill". And, of course, you've always got the "If we can prevent even one death, it's worth it" people around. Those types are aggravating as hell . . . as I've personally seen with respect to gun control as well.
(You knew you could count on me to work in my opinion on gun control in some way, didn't you?) LOL :D
no subject
no subject
"You can have my peanuts when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers."
"Peanuts don't kill people . . . not being prepared for anaphylaxis kills people."
"If peanuts are outlawed, only outlaws will have peanuts!"
Come on, people! Let's not get slack about our right to keep and bear and eat peanuts! :)
-----------------
N.B.: Your author sincerely sympathizes with those with life-threatening allergies, despite his rather off-kilter sense of humor.
no subject
If you haven't met
:)no subject
Sure, we likely heard it from a proponent of organic non-GMO foods, but if it's true, it's an interesting note.
no subject
I skimmed through it and didn't see material that spoke of differences in GM and non-GM peanuts. Peanut allergy is a reaction to a protein in peanuts so, in fact, genetic modification could be a potential *help* in modifying or replacing that protein.
no subject
For one thing, there are two distinct types of peanut allergies. The vast majority of people with peanut allergies (who are already in a minority of the population) are only allergic to peanuts that have been ingested via their mouths. Banning peanuts completely has little effect on these people, because they aren't in danger from peanuts that just happen to be in their environment, and with only a little care, it is relatively easy for such people to avoid peanuts and stay safe (especially with the advent of increased nutritional information required on product packaging).
My brother has this type of allergy, and while it is somewhat scary, because increased exposure leads to increased reaction (meaning, every time he does accidentally ingest something peanut his allergic reaction is worse than the previous times he was exposed), we're still talking about a reaction that is only fatal if it's not treated, and treatment options are very available and safe (everyone I know at risk for an anaphylactic reaction carries a prefilled syringe with epinephrine for dosing themselves in the event of an exposure to the allergen - they are very easy to use; I used one on my brother when I was in junior high).
The more dangerous peanut allergy is one in which simple skin contact can lead to an anaphylactic reaction. However, this type of allergy is exceedingly rare, even among those with a potentially fatal peanut allergy. Banning all peanuts from all schools is vast overkill in such a case. It is usually much easier (and frankly, safer) to simply ban peanuts in smaller areas frequented by the allergic person.
In extreme cases, even a tiny bit of oil residue from a peanut butter sandwich could prove fatal, and it is simply not possible to ban peanuts at that level across an entire school. Just one person forgetting the ban one time could prove fatal. Thus, almost no activist in this area I know would advocate such an approach. Easier to limit the environment the allergic person is in, so that that environment can be thoroughly investigated/cleaned often enough to provide true safety.
Finally, the old/new world connection is interesting to me, because my family and I lived in Germany (old world) when my brother was diagnosed with his peanut allergy and for many years afterwards. As far as I know, his reaction has been know different to the peanuts he was exposed to there than the peanuts he's exposed to here in the US. But I would be interested in seeing a study that investigated the issue.
no subject
I don't believe that fat automatically equals unhealthy. I think that poor eating habits and lack of exercise are what is both causing "the obesity epidemic" and the rise of diabetes and other such diseases in this country. Studies have showns that larger people who have pre-diabetes can elminate this or substantally lower their risks by just exercising and eating a healthy diet. Without losing any wieght at all. I know I am in better shape than most of my friends who are much slimmer than I am. My BMI puts me at "mobidly obese"...I think it's 41.7 or something. But I don't feel morbidly obese at all.
I also like what you said about schools modeling good behavior. I would agree. I think school lunches should be healthier and that candy and soda should not be sold at schools because I think it sends the wrong message, and we should also do what we can to have healthy kids. When I was young, soda was a treat, saved for birthday parties, fourth of july picnics and dinners out with family (also rare). Now kids drink it for breakfast. And as much as we tell our kids to drink the milk and get the turkey sandwich, if you give them $2 and they are left to their own devices they will probably get a coke and a bag of chips.
I also don't think we should be making deals with the devil (aka corporate america) to fund our schools........but that's a whole other issue.