Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What are your thoughts on Jamie Olivers food revolution (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: What are your thoughts on Jamie Olivers food revolution
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What I do not get is why we would need Federal or State law to "encourage" children not to eat candy during school.
We might well need a state law to forbid a public school from putting vending machines containing candy on its premises. Do you see something wrong with that?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you see something wrong with ME telling YOUR children not to eat something? According to what I think is right? Don't you think that should be YOUR decision, your right?

Why do we "NEED" such a law? Because kids are getting fat? What about the skinny kids? Do we "NEED" to force feed them? "NEED" implies that we could not do the right thing on our own, as communities, as parents, as educators, as administrators. You see, I don't think we "NEED" any such law at all. I think we need to encourage exercise, encouraging eating right, encourage parents to talk to their kids about eating. I don't think we NEED such a law because I don't think vending machines are the culprit behind childhood obesity. I don't think snickers bars and coca cola are to blame because we've had them for 100 years and obesity is a current trend. I don't think we need to trample some peoples rights to choose because some people can't make the right decision.

I would sometimes buy a candy bar and drink a coke from the high school vending machines after school. I was also a member of the cross country team and my mother cooked healthy meals for my family in healthy portions. I don't need or want your protection from vending machines, and my kids don't need the state's protection either, because I and my wife will be handling that. When I need big brother's help, I'll let you know, but I don't need it to protect my kids from candy bars and cokes.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you see something wrong with ME telling YOUR children not to eat something? According to what I think is right? Don't you think that should be YOUR decision, your right?
So send them to school with a candy bar. No one is suggesting you can't do that.

quote:
I don't think we need to trample some peoples rights to choose because some people can't make the right decision.
The fact you think this is even at issue tells me you aren't reading what people are writing.

[ April 19, 2010, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What part of:

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
We might well need a state law to forbid a public school from putting vending machines containing candy on its premises. Do you see something wrong with that?

did I not read correctly?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
THe part where you leaped from that statement to thinking anyone's right to choose is in any way being infringed.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I said in my first post, I never denied THE SCHOOL'S right to remove a candy bar machine from it's premises. I reiterate that I strongly support any Principal, school board, or PTA that wishes to remove their vending machine.
So your issues isn't with the school forcing anything to children, it's with the state forcing things to the schools which it funds?

quote:
Where do we draw the line when it comes to telling people what to do via law?
That's easy IMO. If the schools use state funds, then the state gets the right to set the rules it wants. If they're privately funded, then it doesn't get that right.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm a high school senior. I want to buy a candy bar at lunch. I am not unable to because of state law. My right to choose was taken away.

If a woman wants to have an abortion in Texas, but is unable to because of state law, her right to choose was taken away.

Note, I don't want to get a candy bar outside of school. I want one in school. The woman wants an abortion in Texas, not in Tijuana.

My issue is that a State or Federal law is unnecessary, and would be pointless and doomed to failure. My issue is that the issue can and should be handled locally. Does anyone dispute the concept that the problem could be better handled locally, by school faculty, admin, and parents? I have yet to hear anyone prove to me that the State's involvement is necessary.

You're perfectly right in saying that the state has the right to set guidelines for public schools that are funded by the state. Just because it has the right to do so in this case does not mean that it should.

However, the way I see it the law would be completely ineffectual anyways. It would not stop children with the means and desire to buy a candy bar from obtaining one elsewhere.

And this is all because candy bars and cokes are so dangerous. I still don't see it. Take two schools. In one of them, remove the vending machine, in the second keep the vending machine but improve education, parental involvement, and a better physical education program. I doubt that hardly anyone will lose weight in school one, while I imagine school two will see dramatic weight loss.

If removing the vending machine will have little or no effect, why remove it?

If candy bars and cokes are unhealthy for children, why just not make them illegal for children period, just like cigarettes? Now THAT is a proper state law.

I take it that they are not unhealthy enough to make illegal. Then just how unhealthy are they? Are they unhealthy for all children, or just some? Why not make it illegal for obese children to buy candy bars and cokes? Just like it is illegal to sell alcohol to pregnant women.

No, we just want to remove the ability to purchase candy bars and cokes by ALL children on school grounds.

Again, please tell me why this is necessary. If an obese child can purchase candy and coke elsewhere then taking it away from the school is ineffectual.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm a high school senior. I want to buy a candy bar at lunch. I am not unable to because of state law. My right to choose was taken away.
If so it'd have been taken away even if there had been no state law, even if there had only been the principal's decision.

quote:
It would not stop children with the means and desire to buy a candy bar from obtaining one elsewhere.
So, you claim your right is taken away, but you admit you aren't actually prevented from buying candy bars. Don't these two arguments seem contradictory to you?

quote:
If removing the vending machine will have little or no effect, why remove it?
Knowing myself, both now and as a kid, I'm more likely to crave candy if candy is on display, and I'm also more likely to crave a piece of fruit, if a piece of fruit is on display. Put a bowl of tangerines in front of me, I'll devour the bowl of tangerines. Put a bowl of chocolates in front of me, I'll do the same.

quote:
If candy bars and cokes are unhealthy for children, why just not make them illegal for children period, just like cigarettes?
Because they taste good. And we don't want to take away the right of kids to do unhealthy but pleasant stuff. We just don't want to increase this temptation for them.

Buy all the candies you want, kid. I just don't have any reason to want to sell you any.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

quote:

However, the way I see it the law would be completely ineffectual anyways. It would not stop children with the means and desire to buy a candy bar from obtaining one elsewhere.

The important thing is the impact on impulse buys. If the kid wants a candybar or soda bad enough that he plans ahead is one thing, the government making impulse buys convenient is something different.

quote:
Again, please tell me why this is necessary. If an obese child can purchase candy and coke elsewhere then taking it away from the school is ineffectual.
I showed you the math earlier, the intent is not to eliminate the coke and candy consumption. It is to avoid encouraging it by enhancing the convenience. As has been pointed out by others, the student is unlikely to 'plan ahead' just to have coke and candy bar at some random time throughout the day - coke and candy purchases from vending machines are impulse buys. Similarly as stated above, a student isn't going to go and consume an extra coke and candy bar after school to make up for one not done as an impulse buy at school.

Curbing consumption due to a daily impulse could, as shown by my math above using your example of a coke and candybar a day, save 45 lbs of fat growth a year for a particularly impulsive student.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm a high school senior. I want to buy a candy bar at lunch. I am not unable to because of state law. My right to choose was taken away."

A lot of your "rights" are taken away as a high school inmate...I mean, student. And for you to compare the "denial" of your right to purchase a non-vital amenity in a single venue for a limited part of the day with the denial of a vital medical procedure throughout an entire state is vile. Pick up your candy bar at the store on the way to school and quitcher whining. School does not HAVE to facilitate your sweet tooth. You want, find a school that does. Jeez.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Besides the health effects on the rest of the body, all of that stuff can't be good for their teeth. Are school students brushing their teeth during lunch? They probably should be. Just went to the dentist, and that reminded me... Doing okay btw, ty. [Smile]
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thought this was an interesting addition. Do you think the government might have a different response to school meals if it affects the military?
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the government is already showing that it is strongly for school lunch reform. I do believe they were more worried about the health costs though then national security.

I also don't think that national security is really being threatened by this. I don't think their is an obese man or woman alive that a drill sergeant can't slim down, provided the recruit isn't allowed to quit or kill themselves. Cardiovascular exercise is always the sure bet.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the military is losing recruits to an upper weight limit, they simply need to raise their limit and allow the obese to enter a pre-basic training program focused entirely on nutrition and physical training.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Janet D, from the Yahoo News Forum:

"As an elementary school teacher I see the tons of food the kids throw away every single day. If you look at that, you would doubt that the kids eat anything. However, I also see kids whose parents spend their money on other things and there is no food at home. Due to the regulations, teachers are only offered the same food as the children - there is some pretty nasty food being put on the table. I never buy the school lunches.
Stop blaming the schools - start looking to what is happening in the homes of these kids. Who is feeding them there? How much exercise are they getting at home? Who teaches them healthy eating habits? Start holding parents responsible. Healthier lunches would be a welcome change."

Perhaps this woman has expressed my feelings on the matter of school nutrition better then I have. My position has always been one based on my feeling of the personal responsibility of the parents, rather then the responsibility of the government. This woman seems to have something better, experience rather then feeling. No matter what you do in schools it will not matter as much as compared to what is done at home.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would sometimes buy a candy bar and drink a coke from the high school vending machines after school. I was also a member of the cross country team and my mother cooked healthy meals for my family in healthy portions. I don't need or want your protection from vending machines...
What I can't quite figure out, Grant, is why you think schools should be open to all forms of vending -- that, in fact, your default position is that anything which could be profitably sold to students should be sold to students. On school grounds. Full of captive buyers.

[ April 20, 2010, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No matter what you do in schools it will not matter as much as compared to what is done at home.
This is true. Kids are going to bring candy bars from home, rather than healthy lunches. But, why then should schools throw their hands in the air and say "Fine! You can purchase crap here!" At least by getting the crap out of cafeterias, schools can provide a counter-point to what is provided at home.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
No matter what you do in schools it will not matter as much as compared to what is done at home.
This is true. Kids are going to bring candy bars from home, rather than healthy lunches. But, why then should schools throw their hands in the air and say "Fine! You can purchase crap here!" At least by getting the crap out of cafeterias, schools can provide a counter-point to what is provided at home.
So you can't provide a choice and education? Are you saying kids are too stupid to make the smart choices when offered them?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I just don't think that those candy bars and cokes are what is causing these kids to be obese. We've had cokes and candy bars in schools for how long?

I don't think that it's the state's responsiblity to regulate such a thing, I think it is a local responsibility.

I don't think it has anything to do with profit, I don't think that the coca-cola corporation are evil drug dealers making a profit from our kids sugar cravings.

I don't think kids are captive buyers. I think that every child above the age of 12 makes a choice when he puts his quarters into that machine. I don't think calling it an impulse buy resolves an adult or an adolescent from responsibility. I do believe that children are captive to the school lunch program, which is why I support lunch reform.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you can't provide a choice and education? Are you saying kids are too stupid to make the smart choices when offered them?
The choice IS offered to them. But the choice shouldn't be "Which cup is the pea under?" which is what you and Grant seem to want.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
So you can't provide a choice and education? Are you saying kids are too stupid to make the smart choices when offered them?
The choice IS offered to them. But the choice shouldn't be "Which cup is the pea under?" which is what you and Grant seem to want.
No, that's what you want us to want. You have a framework and by God everyone will go into won't they?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sorry, I just don't think that those candy bars and cokes are what is causing these kids to be obese. We've had cokes and candy bars in schools for how long?
Are they contributing, though?

quote:
I don't think that it's the state's responsiblity to regulate such a thing, I think it is a local responsibility.
So, in other words, if a town makes it illegal to put vending machines in the cafeteria, that's ok, but not if the state does it? So, you're entire argument is federalist in nature? Why, then, are you making other arguments? Those other arguments weaken the federalist argument.

quote:
I don't think kids are captive buyers. I think that every child above the age of 12 makes a choice when he puts his quarters into that machine. I don't think calling it an impulse buy resolves an adult or an adolescent from responsibility. I do believe that children are captive to the school lunch program, which is why I support lunch reform.
You can't say they are captive to school lunches but not to vending machines. Kids are not forced to buy a lunch anymore than they are forced to buy a coke from the vending machine that is in the cafeteria. Kids can bring lunches to school just as they can bring a coke to school. If they are captive to one, they are captive to other.

quote:
I think that every child above the age of 12 makes a choice when he puts his quarters into that machine. I don't think calling it an impulse buy resolves an adult or an adolescent from responsibility
But why should that particular choice be offered by the school? Make the argument for me, please, why Local High School SHOULD have a coke machine right next to the cash registers in the cafeteria.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, that's what you want us to want. You have a framework and by God everyone will go into won't they?
Its NOT what I want you to want. It is what the game IS when you put a vending machine in the middle school or high school cafeteria.

You might DENY that it is what the game is, but that's dishonest.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PSRT:

You have some points that I have not considered.

1. I have never considered that a vending machine would be in the cafeteria. That seems to be sending the wrong message.

2. That public school kids are not required to eat the cafeteria's fare.

I went to private school. The meals were part of tuition. Of course we were not required to eat the meals, we could go hungry or I suppose we could eat candy bars. None of us did though. We got candy bars and cokes after school, not for lunch.

If a teenager has the choice between eating candy bars and buying lunch from the cafeteria, it seems to me that he still has a choice, even though it sounds as if the cafeteria food isn't much better. I think the better solution would be to put a big sign on the vending machine that says "this stuff will make you fat," or better yet, pictures of obese men and women in speedos and bikinis. I think that would be encouragement enough, yet still allow teenagers who exercise regularly or have high metabolisms to treat themselves at school.

Not everyone who eats candy bars and drinks cokes is overweight. This tells me that candy bars and cokes are not simple causes of obesity. It tells me that people who do not exercise AND eat candy bars and cokes can become obese.

Can a vending machine in a school contribute to obesity? Yes I suppose it can. But I think the problem of overeating and lack of exercise comes first.

I'm not as up to speed as you are on Federalist philosophy. My only knowledge of the concept comes from the writings of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, whose arguments were for a more powerful Federal Government. I will say that yes, I believe that if a local group such as the school board, the PTA, or the principal wants to remove the vending machine from their school, they are perfectly right to do so. I don't believe that the state government should be involved. I can see how that may be confusing, but that's my feeling on the matter.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not everyone who eats candy bars and drinks cokes is overweight. This tells me that candy bars and cokes are not simple causes of obesity. It tells me that people who do not exercise AND eat candy bars and cokes can become obese.
Not all deaths in school are caused by handguns. Some children have brought a gun to school without a resulting death. Does it follow that we should allow children to bring guns in school?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see a big difference between handguns and snickers bars.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe that if a local group such as the school board, the PTA, or the principal wants to remove the vending machine from their school, they are perfectly right to do so. I don't believe that the state government should be involved. I can see how that may be confusing, but that's my feeling on the matter.
Its not confusing. It just means that you're only left with the federalist argument. Everything else is window dressing, because you're admitting there's nothing wrong with removing vending machines from schools.

I mean, instead of the state legislating removal of vending machines from schools, they could simply say "If you have vending machines in your school, we're assuming you're getting enough money from coke and frito lay that you don't need state aid."

Since state aid makes up a significant fraction of the operating budget for most school districts, such an approach would get vending machines out of schools. And because you're using the federalist argument, there's no ground left for you to stand on if the state takes that approach.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you can't provide a choice and education? Are you saying kids are too stupid to make the smart choices when offered them?
Suppose that someone is? Personally, I think kids are too stupid, or perhaps more accurately, too impulsive to make intelligent choices. Most adults are the same, frankly (me being no exception). The difference is, first, once we've got the kids locked up in a government-run school all day, I can't see how it's some great violation of their rights to make the choice to not stock junk foods in the cafeteria. Is it nanny statist? Sure. But since part of a school's function is to act as a nanny for students put in its care, I don't see this as being an issue. We expect schools to nanny our kids - that's their raison d'etre.

As others have noted, you can stock a vending machine with anything you want. The school can decide. Why the hell do we need to stock Coca Cola and Snickers? I'm baffled at the suggestion that kids have a "right" to buy any specific food on campus.

quote:
Sorry, I just don't think that those candy bars and cokes are what is causing these kids to be obese. We've had cokes and candy bars in schools for how long?
As others have noted, there may be more than one cause. Thousands of useless calories certainly isn't helping.

quote:
If a teenager has the choice between eating candy bars and buying lunch from the cafeteria, it seems to me that he still has a choice, even though it sounds as if the cafeteria food isn't much better. I think the better solution would be to put a big sign on the vending machine that says "this stuff will make you fat," or better yet, pictures of obese men and women in speedos and bikinis. I think that would be encouragement enough, yet still allow teenagers who exercise regularly or have high metabolisms to treat themselves at school.
ORRR... We could just forego the idiotic warnings that we all know are useless and going to be ignored, and just not stock candy bars in the school. It's not rocket science. You still haven't raised any coherent explanation as to what "right" a student has to buy candy bars from the school or why there's a compelling reason to make these foods readily available at school. The school can stock any food it pleases. It pleases me that the school not stock any junk food. The kids can buy junk food on their own time.

quote:
Can a vending machine in a school contribute to obesity? Yes I suppose it can. But I think the problem of overeating and lack of exercise comes first.
We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. You still haven't raised any compelling reason why it's desirable for a school to stock Coca Cola and Snickers in its cafeteria. Not a single one.

quote:
I see a big difference between handguns and snickers bars.
No one implied that a handgun and a snickers bar were equivalent. The simple point Pete made was that like a snickers bar, a gun alone cannot cause a certain harm - only a combination of factors leads to harm. Yet, it is undeniable that if you remove one of these factors, the harm is reduced or eliminated. Thousands of empty calories are not trivial when it comes to the obesity problem. Removing candy bars from school cafeterias is a no-brainer. It's basically the simplest, easiest, least costly measure we can take, and you're against it, why again? Because you think it's a kid's god-given right to be able to buy a coca-cola from a school cafeteria versus bringing it with him from home?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I see a big difference between handguns and snickers bars.
Sure. Snickers bars probably cost more in tax payer dollars, and in years-of-life, than handguns.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK OK OK. I give up. Snickers bars are just too dangerous. They officially cost more tax payer dollars and years of life then handguns. Get them out of the schools. [Smile]
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Passive aggressive retreat is my favorite way to end an argument. [Razz]

There's definitely a trade off to taking away the candy and soft drinks - losing a revenue stream. Of course, that money is coming from students or their families one way or the other.

If the school replaced the vending money with an increased registration fee or something it'd have the advantage of transparency, but you'd also be spreading the cost more evenly instead of relying only on those with candy bar money. There'd be some overhead if you tried to compensate by exempting low income students from the fee.

I'd rather be funding public schools with tax money anyway, and wish we could do it to an extent that they wouldn't be much tempted by kickbacks from Coke. I don't know if that's realistic, though, since more money is always attractive. Weighing (heh) student health against having to make up for the funding shortfall, I think I'm in favor of getting the sugary stuff out of the schools.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Receiving revenue from the vending machine was never a factor in my arguments. It seems to me that if the school is actually counting on revenue from a machine selling dangerous food, then it creates a conflict of interest between receiving that revenue and teaching and encouraging the students to not eat the candy.

I just don't think my school made a lot of money off of the vending machines, they certainly didn't need the money. They probably used it to buy something small for one of the athletic departments, but it was never necessary. The revenue could easily have been made up elsewhere, the vendor revenue was simply a little extra.

It's just strange to me. I'm not from a public school background. I can't imagine a school being that poor that it needs extra money from it's students.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Receiving revenue from the vending machine was never a factor in my arguments. It seems to me that if the school is actually counting on revenue from a machine selling dangerous food, then it creates a conflict of interest between receiving that revenue and teaching and encouraging the students to not eat the candy.

It is the biggest factor in the decision of schools to allow vending machines on their campuses.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh heh. Ok, can we have some snickers bars if the money from the machine goes directly to the M&M corp? That way we eliminate the conflict of interest! We can acctually have an equal amount of money that the machine generates be taken out of the teacher's pay budget. That will really really encourage the school to not encourage the kids eat snickers!!

I know I know. I'm sorry. Snickers bars are responsible for more deaths then handguns. I just gotta remember....

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yowzas,

I didn't realize how much revenue was at stake,

quote:
Through contracts with soft drink companies and other vendors, some schools are raising as much as $100,000 a year, money that pays for such things as computer rewiring, teacher training and Black History Month activities.

Read the fine print of those contracts, though, and the costs start to sink in: One school in Prince George's County guaranteed sales of 4,500 cases of soda a year -- or about 50 sodas a student. Some contracts state that schools could lose money if they turn off the machines at lunchtime, as required by state and federal law. Blair's machines were humming during a recent lunch hour, a common occurrence at schools across the region.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0227-01.htm

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jimminy Crickets LR!! How many calories/lbs a year does that work out to?

Raise funding. Schools shouldn't be getting their money peddling chocolate and sugar!

Somebody give me Michael Moore's phone number.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1