Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Fast food ban

How many years do we need to wait before nutritional experts restrict fast food only to those over eighteen?

Should parents be banned from serving their children pizzas, burgers and chips in the evenings? Who would police it?

Ironically, the BBC also reports 100 new jobs created at a Walkers factory, presumably not supplying their snacks to schools!

6 comments:

Gary Monro said...

Banning this junk in the school is a useful aid to those parents who want to be sure their children each decent food. It supports responsible parenting.

If the kid really can't do without this stuff his parents can ram it down his throat once he gets home. Schools shouldn't be pushing it though. We wouldn't want them to sell cigarettes would we? Yet 6th Formers can legally smoke...

Snafu said...

Gary, it is a useful aid, however, it seems to be a meaningless gesture when access to fast food is limitless beyond the school gate. Most fast food "joints" are invariably full of parents with young children whenever I order a burger and fries!

Will banning fast foods and sweets in school simply increase their allure? What's to prevent children from planning their days a little better and buying crisps and sweets on the way to school?

A recent BBC survey also suggests that healthier school menus does not necessarily mean healthier children as some children simply stopped eating!

geokker said...

I think they should ban crap in schools. They're kids, they need to be told - that's why they're in school - they have no self control. By removing junk, the average fat content of a pupil can only go down.

Gary Monro said...

I think Geokker's right. First of all, adults are supposed to have authority and they must exercise their authority for the well-being of children. It will never be exercised perfectly but it can be exercised beneficially.

And the point of banning junk food at school isn't to prevent kids from eating it for all time. It's to cut it down so that it represents a smaller portion of their overall diet. They'll still eat junk but not so much.

I understand - and share - your suspicions Snafu regarding the nanny state. Just occasionally though a government initiative can bear fruit. This will probably be such an initiative.

Snafu said...

Geokker and Gary, I do sincerely hope that the initiative works, however, if you take the argument to it's extreme, junk food should be banned!

Children do have "self-control", how else could juvenile courts work? If children over the age of 12(?) are assumed to know the difference between right and wrong, shouldn't they also know the importance of physical exercise and the difference between "good" and "bad" foods?

HSBguzzler said...

I think schools serving junk food conditions kids into thinking its normal food, whereas it is plain to see from the obesity stats junk food is far from normal or natural.
Its no bad thing for schools to be setting standards. I dont see it as dictatorial or nanny state; as the govt run the schools then it is their responsibility to feed the kids properly.
If it stops a generation of kids putting crap into their bodies, or provokes kids to consider the nutritional value of the food they eat, then I have to see that as progress (though at least 30 years later than it should have been).