No surprise some kids are getting fatter!!

[Aladdin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/5349392.stm

Parents feed pupils through gates

Pupils at a South Yorkshire school are being fed fish and chips through the gates by parents who say the canteen is not providing what their children want.

Students at Rawmarsh Comprehensive are not allowed out of the grounds at lunchtime, so some parents are taking their orders for the chip shop instead.


For fuck's sake! :mad: :mad: :rolleyes:

No surprise there are so many spoilt brats feeding on shit food on their way to obesity nowadays.

Nice parenting... :rolleyes:

[JsT]

The idea on paper is good, after all half an hour for a lunch break (which most of is spent queuing) is unacceptable. If the food is like our school was it then it was absolutely foul cold uneatable rubbish.

A good idea on paper, dont really approve of whats being brought in for them though, although in their defence they were featured on the local lunchtime news here and most of the stuff being brought in was relatively healthy, I think the Beeb have just attached themselves to the fish and chips.

[Aladdin]

It could well be that the BBC is putting a spin to the story, but according to the article the issue wasn't with lack of time but with some little brats not wanting to eat because the school is no longer serving the so-called food "they like".

Talk about spoliing a child...

[Sofie]

The thing is, the kids should try something new instead of the same old pizza, chips & burgers.

[stargalaxy]

The thing is, the kids should try something new instead of the same old pizza, chips & burgers. Try telling that to a kid. As a child, I ate hardly anything except chips, burgers and ravioli in sauce for some reason. I practically lived on that for about five years!

[Disillusioned]

For the parents to undermine the school in such a way is completely unacceptable. It would be nice if these people got a job and did something productive instead of spending their day taking orders for the chip shop.

Personally I do partly agree with the whole healthy eating thing; children should not be eating cheap food packed with chemicals and other crap but then I think the crux of the child obesity problem is lazy kids not getting any exercise. The fact is children have been eating fish and chips or whatever a few times a week for years and years, it's really nothing new. Maybe incentives for walking to school (for those living nearby) and a few extra PE lessons would help?

[luke88]

Ah these parents are really stupid. OK, let's keep to choice then if that's what they want.

There should be a letter wrote out to all parents which they can decide on whether they prefer their child to eat healthily or anything they would like from crisp, crisps and fizzy drinks. Then food will be served respectively.

Or we can turn to common sense and back the whole scheme to get children to eat healthier. Healthy food means a healthy mind. Children will feel more alert and will absorb more information. P.E should be compulsory and should be available twice a week with many after school activities.

[Sofie]

Luke - PE is compulsary, but up to Year 10, it's 2 hours a week. For Years 10 & 11 it's one hour. After that, there's no compulsary requirement to do PE, but sport is encouraged.

[luke88]

Luke - PE is compulsary, but up to Year 10, it's 2 hours a week. For Years 10 & 11 it's one hour. After that, there's no compulsary requirement to do PE, but sport is encouraged.
I did suggest it being complusary. Also regarding what you're saying, this is not the case at my ex school.

[Sofie]

That's the law, apparantely.

[Spliffie]

We did PE twice a week and the fat bastards still remained fat bastards.

A half hour run twice a week is useless if you run out of wind after a minute. Forcing it on people only serves to make them hate excercise/sport even more anyway. Utterly pointless.

[Man Of Kent]

You are right, Spliffie. And I am sure that they will also be moaning/complaining in the A&E when they have a heart attack - or when they develop typ II diabetes etc.

It's so hard to get kids to understand the concept of long term implications...

[Kermit]

The amount being eaten by people is not the issue, people are actually consuming fewer calories now than they were 50 years ago. Healthy eating is all well and noble, but I think a lot of people take it to extremes. There's nothing wrong with the odd bag of chips or takeout curry.

As for parents "undermining" schools, I suppose it comes down to whom you think should have the final say on what children can and cannot do. I really don't think its up to the state to dictate to parents how they should behave.

As for sport being "encouraged", don't make me laugh. Unless you're Beckham PE teachers don't give a flying fuck about you, and spend more of their time mocking your efforts than encouraging you to enjoy the sport you are playing. I was never all that good at sport because I couldn't run very fast and I couldn't see too well without my glasses, and rather than offer me encouragement they spent their time humiliating the weakest runners and jumpers. For some unfathomable reason I lost all confidence in exercise, and didn't do any, and it took me years to get over it.

[luke88]

The amount being eaten by people is not the issue, people are actually consuming fewer calories now than they were 50 years ago.
I've always been told the contrary to this.

Healthy eating is all well and noble, but I think a lot of people take it to extremes. There's nothing wrong with the odd bag of chips or takeout curry.

Yeah - but in moderation. Many people ear this kind of stuff everyday, which is taking it to the extreme.


As for parents "undermining" schools, I suppose it comes down to whom you think should have the final say on what children can and cannot do. I really don't think its up to the state to dictate to parents how they should behave.

I supose it is up to the individual but in this case, the parents. But I believe parents should support healthy eating - what eactly is wrong with it? I don't understand why these parents are so against it.

As for sport being "encouraged", don't make me laugh. Unless you're Beckham PE teachers don't give a flying fuck about you, and spend more of their time mocking your efforts than encouraging you to enjoy the sport you are playing. I was never all that good at sport because I couldn't run very fast and I couldn't see too well without my glasses, and rather than offer me encouragement they spent their time humiliating the weakest runners and jumpers. For some unfathomable reason I lost all confidence in exercise, and didn't do any, and it took me years to get over it.I agree somewhat here. At my school it were the same old people that were captains of sport etc. It is humiliating for those that need encouragement to be better at sport. They never get the chance and become to hate it as they're always being laughed at or humiliated.

There needs to be a lot more selection in PE lessons and a lot more individuality. I mean, kids need to set their own targets so they get some benefit from the lessons.

[Aladdin]

As for parents "undermining" schools, I suppose it comes down to whom you think should have the final say on what children can and cannot do. I really don't think its up to the state to dictate to parents how they should behave. But then again schools have a policy- and indeed a duty- to provide healthy and balanced meals. Sure, the school meals themselves could be rather bad only a year ago, the point is schools are moving towards healthier meals for everyone.

If parents don't agree with the menu then they should take their kid out and find a school were Mcshit is served- or give their kids home education so they can make sure their precious little kids eat exactly what they like- lest they see anything green on their plate and have a fit.

[Kermit]

Schools have a duty to provide it, but they don't have a right to force-feed kids it.

If parents decide to do this, it is a decision for the parent and child. I don't agree with their decision, but its not up to the school to start trying to impose sanctions.

luke, the consumption of calories has gone down by about 700 calories a day on average. The problem is that the burning off of calories has gone down by about 1100 calories a day.

[CheeseOnToast]

I think school menu's used to be appauling, rank mash and veg or chips with beans/curry etc etc

I am very into healthy eating, not a freak as I do have my treats (quite often!) but my staple meals are healthy and nutritious, and I pride myself on my baby boy eating the same way.

Diet goes a long way in keeping peoples mental state healthy too y'know

[Ballerina]

Luke - PE is compulsary, but up to Year 10, it's 2 hours a week. For Years 10 & 11 it's one hour. After that, there's no compulsary requirement to do PE, but sport is encouraged.
at our school in year 7 its 3 hours a week, then 2 after that

in year 11 we could chose between a sport and the gym though

[Aladdin]

There is also the issue of people taking fucking orders for other kids.

It's bad enough that some parents feel their precious little child must not go a single day without having their portion of chips... but when they start taking orders over the fence from other kids that simply takes the piss.

I sincererly hope the school in question puts a barbed wire perimeter fence so the shameful episode isn't repeated.

[Fiend_85]

Excercise is certainly an issue. It take a lot of hard work to keep fit, and if you stop, it's gone. I spent 9 months getting up to my peak competition fitness, I had to stop for 6 weeks for an injury, and it's gone. Almost all of it. That's either completely soul-destroying, or an encouragement to get back on the pitch and back on the track asap.

So for calories, yeah, maybe we are eating less, but we're eating artificial crap, E numbers and preservatives, and people wonder why ADHD and ADD is suddenly everywhere, don't they think it might have something to do with the chemicals we've been feeding our kids.

[seeker]

I sincererly hope the school in question puts a barbed wire perimeter fence so the shameful episode isn't repeated.

The (unintended ?) irony there has me VERY amused.:D :D

[Aladdin]

I aim to please. :)

Do explain the cause of your amusement though :confused:

[seeker]

I aim to please. :)

Do explain the cause of your amusement though :confused:

You are refering to an institution that provides a compulsory service that must be paid for whether used or not, and the contents of which are dictated (i.e. propaganda of the providers). The recipients of the service are also forced to attend under threat of violence to their family members.

Barbed wire perimeter fence, indeed.

[Aladdin]

I was going to ask "what is this violence you speak of", but from previous experience with the lamented klintock I shall refrain from doing so- I can see the thread derailing very rapidly into the same boring arguments discussed plenty of times here. So I shall say no more.

[Uncle Joe]

You are refering to an institution that provides a compulsory service that must be paid for whether used or not, and the contents of which are dictated (i.e. propaganda of the providers). The recipients of the service are also forced to attend under threat of violence to their family members.

Barbed wire perimeter fence, indeed.
It's like Klintock is actually in the room...

[Uncle Joe]

I was going to ask "what is this violence you speak of", but from previous experience with the lamented klintock...
Should have read right to the end of the thread before hitting 'reply' I guess. Ah, well... :)

[seeker]

I was going to ask "what is this violence you speak of", but from previous experience with the lamented klintock I shall refrain from doing so- I can see the thread derailing very rapidly into the same boring arguments discussed plenty of times here. So I shall say no more.

A victim of the aforementioned institution, per chance ? :chin:

[Jim V]

people wonder why ADHD and ADD is suddenly everywhere, don't they think it might have something to do with the chemicals we've been feeding our kids.

Worth bearing in mind that new medical conditions often seem to suddenly spring up when they are discovered - it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't exsist before - just that no one had any term to discribe them previously.

For example, some of the studies of life-sentance prisoners showed evidence of childhood add or adhd at a very high rate regardless of age - but I'm afraid you'll have to take that on trust as it was something I read years ago rather than something I've got a link to.

[VinylVicky]

I was fuming when I about this in the papers. Fine if they want to do that to their kids but if they were selling food like that at lunch time to my kids, I'd go ballistic!
They say the kids are left starving, well tough! Let them starve. Fill them up with a good breakfast and i they don't have their lunch, they can wait til their evening meal, it's hardly starving, is it?
They will have to learn to like fruit, veg and healthy food.
I'm not saying no treats and no to chips, just not every day of the week.

[Fiend_85]

Worth bearing in mind that new medical conditions often seem to suddenly spring up when they are discovered - it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't exsist before - just that no one had any term to discribe them previously.

For example, some of the studies of life-sentance prisoners showed evidence of childhood add or adhd at a very high rate regardless of age - but I'm afraid you'll have to take that on trust as it was something I read years ago rather than something I've got a link to.
That's a factor as well. Until something exists, you can't suffer from it.

However, good diet, not full of crap makes a massive difference, as tested on life-sentance prisoners, but I also don't have a link.

[purplebutterfly]

I really eat the food at school becuase it was all fryed unhealthy stuff, my sixth form I was going home every day for lunch (but living right by the school helped). Ther needs to be
a) cooking lessons reitroduced, not Food Tech, Cooking, how to make healthy meals etc. I'm 21 have done food tech and cant cook for shit.

b) there needs to be more emphasis on exercise, the PE requirments are shit and after school sports clubs are few and far between. Kids need to be encouarged and not be degraded for trying, I never did anything at sports day because I knew I would have the piss taken for coming last. The also need to encourage kids to walk/ride to school more. I know this is hard for some as the live some way from the school etc but the amount of mothers that pick their kids up when they live a mile or so away (and could be walked in little time) is stupid. I always walked to school/work when it was close enough. (4 mile round trip each day, for over a year in one job) I would happily walk to work now, its just would take me 2 hours.

[Shortay]

.

[Sofie]

I have done food tech and cant cook for shit.

And there was me thinking I was the only one...

I never did anything at sports day because I knew I would have the piss taken for coming last.

Same here. And there wasn't that much of an encouragement to take part anyway.

The also need to encourage kids to walk/ride to school more. I know his is hard for some as the live some way from the school etc but the amount of mothers taht pick teh kids up when they live a mile or so away (and could be walked in little time) is stupid.

Agreed.

[budda]

Maybe I grew up different from you lot but in my household if you didnt like the offerings then you didnt eat, it did me no harm.

And anyway, there seems to be lots of talk about not feeding this high processed foods to kids, its FAR FAR more simple than that, no one should be eating that shite. Things which are that processed should just plain not be allowed.

The food industry certainly doesnt give a fuck about our health so we need to legally lay down what they can and cant do.

[CptCoatHanger]

Maybe I grew up different from you lot but in my household if you didnt like the offerings then you didnt eat, it did me no harm.

And anyway, there seems to be lots of talk about not feeding this high processed foods to kids, its FAR FAR more simple than that, no one should be eating that shite. Things which are that processed should just plain not be allowed.

The food industry certainly doesnt give a fuck about our health so we need to legally lay down what they can and cant do.

Strongly agree.

I've never been a fussy eater and i strongly believe it's because i was never fed anything other than wholesome, home-cooked food as a child. I also had a similar upbringing to Budda, food was never made an issue of, you just ate what you were given. I think as soon as you start pandering to a childs whims then you're making a rod for your own back.

As far as the women from the article are concerned, they can fuck right off. If i caught one of those women selling my child burger and chips through the railings then she'd get a swift kick in the cunt. I consider what they're doing child abuse, and although they may have the right to feed their own child crap, they certainly don't have the right to do it to mine.

Healthy meals in schools should be mandatory. For some kids it may be the only decent meal they'll get in a day.

[minimi38]

And anyway, there seems to be lots of talk about not feeding this high processed foods to kids, its FAR FAR more simple than that, no one should be eating that shite. Things which are that processed should just plain not be allowed.



what.the.fuck

[budda]

what.the.fuck

So describing re-constituted offal and random chemicals as 'food' is totally fine, suppliers should have no controls over what they use?

[minimi38]

Yes. What someone wants to eat and a supplier's choice in providing what that person wants to eat is nothing to do with anyone but the parties involved.

mmm, monosodium glutamate.

*twitch*

[CptCoatHanger]

Yes. What someone wants to eat and a supplier's choice in providing what that person wants to eat is nothing to do with anyone but the parties involved.

mmm, monosodium glutamate.

*twitch*

I don't want to eat mechanically recovered meat, but that doesn't mean i'm not going to eat it because a producer doesn't have to detail how they acquired the meat in their product.

[minimi38]

I don't want to eat mechanically recovered meat.




Then take 5 seconds out of your life to look at the list of ingredients. Ever noticed how your 59p pack of pork slices says "~60% mechanically recovered meat and E-xyz^n?"



but that doesn't mean i'm not going to eat it because a producer doesn't have to detail how they acquired the meat in their product.

Producers know where their supplies comes from...

[Sofie]

Surely giving a child healthy food is a parents' responsibilty and schools'?

I've never been a fussy eater and i strongly believe it's because i was never fed anything other than wholesome, home-cooked food as a child. I also had a similar upbringing to Budda, food was never made an issue of, you just ate what you were given. I think as soon as you start pandering to a childs whims then you're making a rod for your own back.

Despite being a fussy eater (not as bad now, but the reason for being fussy now is totally different) I was in this situation when I was younger - I was given food and if I didn't like it, I wasn't offered anything different. Yes, if I didn't look some food (as part of a meal) I wasn't given it, but was given everything else that everyone else had.

[CptCoatHanger]

Surely giving a child healthy food is a parents' responsibilty and schools'?

Despite being a fussy eater (not as bad now, but the reason for being fussy now is totally different) I was in this situation when I was younger - I was given food and if I didn't like it, I wasn't offered anything different. Yes, if I didn't look some food (as part of a meal) I wasn't given it, but was given everything else that everyone else had.

I think very few children are naturally fussy eaters. In my opinion, most fussy eaters are products of the approach their parents took towards them and food. There's a scene in Jamie's School Dinners where a child manages to make himself physically sick because he's convinced himself he doesn't like chicken. He's coerced into taking a bite and before the chicken even hits his tastebuds he's thrown up. I think that alone speaks volumes.

[Ballerina]

I agree, not many kids are really fussy eaters. They're just so used to crap.
I can sort of understand, if they're not allowed out then they spend most of the lunch time queing and by the time you get there, theres not much left.
But whats stopping them giving them packed lunches?

[CheeseOnToast]

It's true that kids aren't fussy eaters, I used to think they were until I had my own son.

He will eat nearly anything, granted I am raising him vegetarian so he hasn't had meat, but he will eat any veg under the sun, weird shit as well like butternut squash, avacardo, etc, he's awesome.

I do think if you eat a lot of crap you become acustomed to it and your body craves it. I know at Christmas my standards slip a lot and after a week of eating shit I really crave it, and not only that, but I am tired/depressed/generally run down feeling from not having nice wholesome meals, it makes hell of a difference!

I think Budda is right./

[Uncle Joe]

They say the kids are left starving, well tough! Let them starve. Fill them up with a good breakfast and i they don't have their lunch, they can wait til their evening meal, it's hardly starving, is it?
They'll get used to it before you can say 'Ramadan' :)

Edit: And I third the packed lunch option. It'll save them queuing (sp?) up, too...

[Kermit]

Then take 5 seconds out of your life to look at the list of ingredients. Ever noticed how your 59p pack of pork slices says "~60% mechanically recovered meat and E-xyz^n?"

The point is, of course, that the list of ingredients is only there and is only sop detailed because the law has made them put it there.

In an open and unregulated market, the list of ingredients would not be there.

[minimi38]

A governent can force a food manufactuer to disclose whats is contained in thier product while letting them sell foods with whatever legal additives they choose to put in. Responsibility for ones eating habits should not be removed from the individual.

[seeker]

In an open and unregulated market, the list of ingredients would not be there.

How do know ? :chin:

[Kermit]

How do know ? :chin:

the fact that ingredients lists were not included, and what was in a product were actively hidden, until legislation forced them to be is a pretty big giveaway.

[CptCoatHanger]

A governent can force a food manufactuer to disclose whats is contained in thier product while letting them sell foods with whatever legal additives they choose to put in. Responsibility for ones eating habits should not be removed from the individual.

That responsibility is in the hands of the school as far as school dinners are concerned. Only the school knows what is actually in the products they're serving i.e. highly processed ingredients, preservatives, and stabilisers. We know these ingredients are detrimental to our health and so they should not be served to kids in school. A captive audience, especially one as vulnerable as young-uns in schools, should not be exposed to this shite.

[budda]

A captive audience, especially one as vulnerable as young-uns in schools, should not be exposed to this shite.

Captive audience or not, it makes little difference, we need to take a much stronger attitude to what people can and cant sell as food.

And a full ban on advertising for kids would be good as well.

[minimi38]

That responsibility is in the hands of the school as far as school dinners are concerned. Only the school knows what is actually in the products they're serving i.e. highly processed ingredients, preservatives, and stabilisers. We know these ingredients are detrimental to our health and so they should not be served to kids in school. A captive audience, especially one as vulnerable as young-uns in schools, should not be exposed to this shite.

This food probably shouldn't be served in schools. Bongbudda said processed food shouldn't be allowed for anyone to consume and you agreed...

[I'm With Stupid]

the fact that ingredients lists were not included, and what was in a product were actively hidden, until legislation forced them to be is a pretty big giveaway.
I would argue that if people really wanted to know, then food companies would have to put the ingredients on there, or risk losing the sales. If you can get a big enough consumer demand behind something, it happens. Fair Trade produce is an example of this. If companies weren't forced to put their ingredients on the back of a packet, I would imagine that current consumer trends would lead to any reputable food companies, who want a reputation for quality, signing up to such a scheme, and the rest would suffer any losses they might incur otherwise.

I don't think that people give consumers enough credit. In the current system, the one's who care, read the labels, and they would be the one's that would only buy the labelled products under a free system. The rest don't read the labels anyway, so they wouldn't care whether something was labelled or not. Any company with half a brain would just label their products anyway, to maximize thier potential customer base. That basic business sense.

ETA: And remember, for this law to go through in the first place, there must have been a fair amount of demand for it. It's not a case that no-one cared until it became law.

[Kermit]

Consumer demand has very little impact on what companies do, they basicaly pay lip service to what people actually want. Sunny Delight is an excellent example of this.

Companies make money by dodgy and diving away from things, in order to hide the shite they put in food. Even with ingredients lists just look at how so many things are marketed and illustrated at fruit juice, except for the magic little word "drink" on the end. Cranberry juice "drink", for instance, is jam-packed full of water, sugar and aspartame, but not very many cranberries, yet is sold from fridges in the supermarket and is listed under "fruit juice".

Even Fair Trade is a clever marketing ploy- whilst it is ethically better than the normal stuff, it isn't fantastic, and the improvement certainly doesn't justify the astronomical price tag that goes along with it.

The notion that people who take food products at face value are stupid or naive is ludicrous, and all it does is allow the unethical and immoral food and advertising companies to clamber off the hook for creating chemical-ridden food and then advertising it as healthy. The reason why top advertising people get paid so much is because they are so good at manipulating what a product is, and labelling it in such a way that it sounds like it is healthy and nutritious. Even Kelloggs Frosties are a healthy and nutritious cereal if you read the blurb on the box, "enriched" with vitamins and iron for growing kids. Lets not mention the trans fats (which don't have to be labelled) and the ten tonnes of sugar, eh?

And whilst we're intelligent people who know what aspartame and monosodium glutamate are, the mother who left school at 16 with no GCSEs certainly doesn't.

[Fiend_85]

Even Fair Trade is a clever marketing ploy- whilst it is ethically better than the normal stuff, it isn't fantastic, and the improvement certainly doesn't justify the astronomical price tag that goes along with it.

You should read a book called the undercover economist, you'd love it, and you're absolutly correct.

Anyway, if anyone watches the diet doctors from time to time on five, that's clear evidence that what you eat affects your health massively.

I'm a big fan of excercise though, obviously you can't make school kids work as hard as I do, or most uni-level sportsmen and women. But an hour a week isn't enough, especially as it's not an hour, because they spend at least 20-25 mins fannying about getting changed.

It's time to get some fat burning going on (haha, just remembered a slightly harsh but funny joke at my expense). Kids need to get on the pitch, on the track, out of artificial lighting and away from their computers for a change.

[budda]

This food probably shouldn't be served in schools. Bongbudda said processed food shouldn't be allowed for anyone to consume and you agreed...

I'm not saying that all processed food should be banned, that would indeed be a step too far, but there needs to be clear limits on the chemicals and processes they can use.

[budda]

I don't think that people give consumers enough credit. In the current system, the one's who care, read the labels, and they would be the one's that would only buy the labelled products under a free system. The rest don't read the labels anyway, so they wouldn't care whether something was labelled or not. Any company with half a brain would just label their products anyway, to maximize thier potential customer base. That basic business sense.

Frankly thats rubbish, not only is the list of ingredients often in writing so small you need an atomic microscope to read it, but the list of chemicals is so long that no one could be expected to understand it.

[I'm With Stupid]

And whilst we're intelligent people who know what aspartame and monosodium glutamate are, the mother who left school at 16 with no GCSEs certainly doesn't.
That's what the consumer press is for. The mother who left school at 16 may not know what aspartame is. Hell, as Budda said, there's stuff on the label that a chemist has never heard of. That's why you would rely on independent companies to tell you that "so and so is bad for you, because it contains this, too much of which causes that." And the sales go down, so the companies react. If the sales don't go down, then I guess people don't care enough to not buy the product. You may not trust independent companies, rather than 'official' sources, but who do we have to thank that our kids are now eating healthy school meals? It sure as hell wasn't the government.

Yes, companies use marketing to make their products appear to be something they're not, but that's where independent sources come in and call them on their bullshit. It does happen, even now. Remember Coca Cola's first foray into the bottled water market? Independent sources told us that it was in fact, just purified tap water, straight out of the system, and their product failed miserably.

All that you've demonstrated is that in spite of the laws that currently exist, companies still find ways to bullshit us about their products. This would be no different in a free-market, but I don't think it would be any worse.

[budda]

That's what the consumer press is for. The mother who left school at 16 may not know what aspartame is. Hell, as Budda said, there's stuff on the label that a chemist has never heard of. That's why you would rely on independent companies to tell you that "so and so is bad for you, because it contains this, too much of which causes that." And the sales go down, so the companies react. If the sales don't go down, then I guess people don't care enough to not buy the product. You may not trust independent companies, rather than 'official' sources, but who do we have to thank that our kids are now eating healthy school meals? It sure as hell wasn't the government.

So basically put food manufacturers should be allowed to put what ever the hell they fancy in the food and its up to us to read about what harm it might be doing us?

[Littleali]

And whilst we're intelligent people who know what aspartame and monosodium glutamate are, the mother who left school at 16 with no GCSEs certainly doesn't.
I know for a fact a lot of my uni mates wouldnt know what either of those things are and they certainly aint thick!

[I'm With Stupid]

So basically put food manufacturers should be allowed to put what ever the hell they fancy in the food and its up to us to read about what harm it might be doing us?
Who said that? I was just explaining how things would work under a free market system. But one would assume that if a company put something in their food that was proved to have caused health problems for people, they'd be in for one hell of a compensation payout.

[budda]

Who said that? I was just explaining how things would work under a free market system. But one would assume that if a company put something in their food that was proved to have caused health problems for people, they'd be in for one hell of a compensation payout.

What would the benefit of the free market system be? Other than increasing the profits of the large food companies.

It just seems your idea is completely reactive rather than proactive, its up to the consumers to research everything they eat rather than certain items known to cause helth concerns to be banned.

[princessamy]

Who said that? I was just explaining how things would work under a free market system. But one would assume that if a company put something in their food that was proved to have caused health problems for people, they'd be in for one hell of a compensation payout.
There are thousands of things put in food that are proven to cause health problems for people, but the government let companies put those things in there anyway.


Has anyone ever researched these food chemicals at all? I was amazed how much stuff is allowed to be put in our food that isn't anywhere else. We're allowed a whole host of nasty shit that even America don't allow in there food.

[Toadborg]

What would the benefit of the free market system be? Other than increasing the profits of the large food companies.

It just seems your idea is completely reactive rather than proactive, its up to the consumers to research everything they eat rather than certain items known to cause helth concerns to be banned.

Things that have health concerns ought to be banned?

This rather jars against your views (I presume) concerning marijuana doesn't it.

(I apologise if my presumption is wrong but i kinda assume that you are for liberalising laws on this)

[budda]

Things that have health concerns ought to be banned?

This rather jars against your views (I presume) concerning marijuana doesn't it.

(I apologise if my presumption is wrong but i kinda assume that you are for liberalising laws on this)

Although the two arent really related Ill attempt to explain my position.

Cannabis - prohibition has clearly failed, giving the market a impure product which is of higher risk to the consumer. Controlled legal sale would reduce the potential harm to the consumer.

Recovered and chemically treated offal (or other chemical additives) - No need other than the reduction of cost and higher profit, known harm and no possible black market because there isnt really any demand. Banning these processes and substances from food would reduce the potential harm to the consumer.

[Kermit]

People should be allowed to make an informed choice, but certain particularly nasty chemicals should be banned.

I'm With Stupid, why should it be up to me to trawl through the press to find out about the food that I am eating? If it says beefburger on the the front it should be a fucking beefburger, made with beef not mechanically recovered cows intestines flavoured with a list of chemicals as long as your arm.

To think that consumers can change company policy in many cases is utterly ridiculous. What happens is that companies just change their marketing- 20% less salt!- until people buy it again.

But hey, if companies sell shit and hide it, and people don't notice, its because people are lazy, right?

[I'm With Stupid]

I'm With Stupid, why should it be up to me to trawl through the press to find out about the food that I am eating? If it says beefburger on the the front it should be a fucking beefburger, made with beef not mechanically recovered cows intestines flavoured with a list of chemicals as long as your arm.
And that's currently the case with the government's 'official' guidelines is it? No you wouldn't have to trawl through the media for every item you want to buy. Independent companies would most likely set up a scheme, by which a logo would be placed on products that pass certain requirements, whatever they may be, and you'd just look for the logo. Same as the fair trade scheme. Now if you have a problem with Fair Trade products not being to your liking, what do you do? Campaign to each company individually? No, you contact the organising body.

Why should it be your responsibility to find out what you're putting in your mouth? I ask you, why should it be anyone elses fucking responsibility? It's your body.

[budda]

Independent companies would most likely set up a scheme, by which a logo would be placed on products that pass certain requirements, whatever they may be, and you'd just look for the logo.

Why should it be your responsibility to find out what you're putting in your mouth? I ask you, why should it be anyone elses fucking responsibility? It's your body.

Would most likely set up a scheme? And what if they didnt?

Again it sounds really like you're happy for food makers to put virtually anything in food and for there to be only the labels they choose to add.

Why should a company be able to sell this 'shite' to kids? Why are things allowed to be sold as food when none of the 'ingredients' are even vaugely like the one's you'd use at home if you cooked the same thing?

[I'm With Stupid]

Why should a company be able to sell this 'shite' to kids? Why are things allowed to be sold as food when none of the 'ingredients' are even vaugely like the one's you'd use at home if you cooked the same thing?
Because people are willing to exercise their free will to buy these products. Like I said, if it is a concern to them, they'll buy fresh produce, like many people do currently.

[I'm With Stupid]

Would most likely set up a scheme? And what if they didnt?
Well then they would lose money. If there is a market for entirely fresh, natural produce, then someone will fill it. If it's popular, it will grow. And you don't think they'd proudly display this fact on their packaging, by putting a list of ingredients?

[budda]

Because people are willing to exercise their free will to buy these products. Like I said, if it is a concern to them, they'll buy fresh produce, like many people do currently.

And the people who cant make an informed choice? Those who cant read for example or those with low IQ.

[I'm With Stupid]

And the people who cant make an informed choice? Those who cant read for example or those with low IQ.
That's why schemes would undoubtadly be set up to inform people, by way of a logo, for example. There would be a market for it in my opinion. Look how many people on here are requesting government confirmation that their food is natural. In the absence of government control, do you not believe that these same people would be requesting another form of independent regulation? Laws like this only pass because of public opinion, and the market would also react to this type of public opinion without being forced to, in my opinion.

I'm not arguing that this should be the way it is, I'm just saying that under the free market, not much would change, which was what the argument was about if you remember.

[Jaloux]

On top of all I need to do every day, I don't want to feel the need to check every single item I buy if there's some shit in it that's harmful to my health. A part of my taxes goes towards others thinking about it for me.

Don't get me wrong, I do take a look at most things I buy now and then, but sometimes I just want to trust that what I'm buying is what it says it is.

There's a lot of things people would want or do in an ideal world, but it's just not realistic. I would love to buy free range chicken meat for example, but I haven't got a clue where to start finding out where/if that's possible so I'm stuck supporting this filthy practice that most chicken farming is if I want to eat chicken. It'd help me loads if the government put a legislation on it. ;) Although for now it's not realistic, sadly.

[Blagsta]

You can get free range/organic chicken in most supermarkets. Tescos do it as do Sainsburys.

[Jaloux]

You can get free range/organic chicken in most supermarkets. Tescos do it as do Sainsburys.

Will keep it in mind if I move to the UK. ;) It breaks my heart to see shots from these farms. It's disgusting and sick and I hate supporting it. Thankfully the store I shop from now sells free range eggs. Maybe they have meat as well, need to have a better look I suppose. :)

[minimi38]

A part of my taxes goes towards others thinking about it for me.



:lol:

[Kermit]

That's why schemes would undoubtadly be set up to inform people, by way of a logo, for example.

You mean the way that most other self-accreditation schemes are such huge and resounding successes?

There's no such thing as independent.

There would be a market for it in my opinion.

There would be amongst those who can afford to choose. As for the rest of us, well, you eat what you're given, don't you?

Blagsta, you can get free range/organic produce in most supermarkets. But with the notable exception of the Co-Op, the organic range is twice the price of the normal stuff. Great if you're on a small budget, isn't it?

[Skive]

Diseases related deaths due to being overweight are about to over take deaths from smoking.
We ban kids from smoking, why can't we ban them from shite foods?

[I'm With Stupid]

There's no such thing as independent.
Exactly. So why do you trust the government to be independent. These independent companies would be as independent as the government is currently. So nothing changes.

And as for the budget, I don't really get what your issue is. If I'm on a budget at the moment, I still have to buy meat with no meat in it, and "fish" rather than haddock. How is it any different?

[Kermit]

The point is that the worst chemicals could only be banned through law, "consumer pressure" is meaningless. Minimum standards can only be enforced through law, not through "independent" watchdogs and media coverage.

Who makes the law?

[CptCoatHanger]

Blagsta, you can get free range/organic produce in most supermarkets. But with the notable exception of the Co-Op, the organic range is twice the price of the normal stuff. Great if you're on a small budget, isn't it?

Organic produce shouldn't be treated as the mecca of food. It guarantees a certain level of production quality, however, this rarely justifies the prices that are attached to the label.

Eating well isn't hard or expensive (generally), it just requires quality food education.

[Kermit]

Eating well isn't hard or expensive (generally), it just requires quality food education.

That's the problem- it requires time, and it requires a bit of knowledge.

Many people these days have neither, so resort to the processed crap. Often fresh ingredients are cheaper, but not after you factor in the time and energy it takes to cook all that food, and then do all the washing up afterwards.

People should be allowed to make an informed choice to eat rubbish- I had a Big Mac at the weekend and quite enjoyed it- but the problem is that many companies market their processed crap as fresh organic produce, and people are not clued up enough to realise anything different.

There's a reason why advertising is so well funded by companies, and it isn't simply to increase brand awareness.

[VinylVicky]

I'm lucky, I love cooking and make a healthy meal, with at least 3 fresh veg every night, then my housemates wash up. I'd hate to have to eat junk all of the time.
Cooking can be fun but I suppose it's not to everyone's joy.

[CptCoatHanger]

That's the problem- it requires time, and it requires a bit of knowledge.

Many people these days have neither, so resort to the processed crap. Often fresh ingredients are cheaper, but not after you factor in the time and energy it takes to cook all that food, and then do all the washing up afterwards.

People should be allowed to make an informed choice to eat rubbish- I had a Big Mac at the weekend and quite enjoyed it- but the problem is that many companies market their processed crap as fresh organic produce, and people are not clued up enough to realise anything different.

There's a reason why advertising is so well funded by companies, and it isn't simply to increase brand awareness.

With even basic food education is doesn't take a lot of time or effort to prepare a healthy, nutrious meal. I'm sure i could prepare a fiilet of fresh fish and a quality salad at similar expense and time as it would take to microwave a ready meal.

I'm in compete agreement with enabling people to make informed choices when it comes to food. People do need educating, however, If you know food is shite for you and you continue to over indluge in it, then you deserve the consequences.

[budda]

Organic produce shouldn't be treated as the mecca of food. It guarantees a certain level of production quality, however, this rarely justifies the prices that are attached to the label.

Actually organic food (especially organic processed food) is often of lower quality than stuff where they use the chemicals. The organic label has nothing to do with the quality of the food at all, just how its made.

[seeker]

the fact that ingredients lists were not included, and what was in a product were actively hidden, until legislation forced them to be is a pretty big giveaway.

Imagine for a moment, if you please . . . .

GWST produces a meal for her beloved (let`s call him Kermit ;) ). All his time that day has been taken up with his work. He arrives home just as the meal hits the table.

Does he DEMAND from GWST what is in his meal ?

If she refused to tell him,or if her answer didn`t meet with his approval, how do you think he would respond ?

[budda]

If she refused to tell him,or if her answer didn`t meet with his approval, how do you think he would respond ?

Hopefully Kermit is a little closer to his wife than he is to a big agro-chemical company.

[Aladdin]

That's the most bizarre analogy I have ever seen seeker.

:confused:

[briggi]

That's the most bizarre analogy I have ever seen seeker.

:confused:

:lol:

Indeed. I got a kick out of it, though... imagining GWST letting out a bloodcurdling scream and smashing the fully-loaded plate over his head :razz:

[Uncle Joe]

:lol:

Indeed. I got a kick out of it, though... imagining GWST letting out a bloodcurdling scream and smashing the fully-loaded plate over his head :razz:
And on their anniversary, too. But those open candles were a fire hazard...

[Blagsta]

Blagsta, you can get free range/organic produce in most supermarkets. But with the notable exception of the Co-Op, the organic range is twice the price of the normal stuff. Great if you're on a small budget, isn't it?

No, its shit.

[CptCoatHanger]

Actually organic food (especially organic processed food) is often of lower quality than stuff where they use the chemicals. The organic label has nothing to do with the quality of the food at all, just how its made.

I'd disagree. Organic produce, although not the bee-all-and-end-all of quality food, does mean that you're getting food free from pesticides, preservatives, additives etc. It also means that there are stricter regulations on paper-trails as well as the produce (and production methods) being inspected more regularly than non-organic operations.

I'm sure that there are a few anomalous instances of organic food being worse for you than the regular stuff, but on the whole I think you’re getting a better product. However, I rarely think the price hikes associated with organic produce are justified.

[Toadborg]

Of course orgainc food will be more expensive.

The whole point of usinf pesticides, fertilisers etc is to increase yeild and seel a t lower prices, take this away and production falls and prices rise.....

Frankly the whole thing is a con, people think that by buying organic they are somehow being virtuous, why? A little less pesticide use is hardly making the world a better place is it?

[Blagsta]

Frankly the whole thing is a con, people think that by buying organic they are somehow being virtuous, why?

Do they? Have you some hotline to people's inner thoughts? :confused:

[Toadborg]

In my experience, of course........

[Blagsta]

I (very) occasionally buy organic. Nothing to do with wanting to be "virtuous". More to do with (a) wanting to eat healthier food and (b) not wanting to contribute to environmentally damaging industrial agriculture. I would guess that that is most people's reasoning. I would doubt that most people think they are displaying moral excellence in buying organic.

[Toadborg]

why is organic food healthier?

[budda]

A little less pesticide use is hardly making the world a better place is it?

We could drastically cut down on the amount of chemicals we use without having to go organic, largely the use of chemicals is because of lazy or ill informed farmers. That and we produce FAR FAR too much of the wrong sort of foods because of the CAP.

[Blagsta]

why is organic food healthier?

I'd have thought that was obvious. It has had no poisonous chemicals sprayed on it.

[katralla]

We could drastically cut down on the amount of chemicals we use without having to go organic, largely the use of chemicals is because of lazy or ill informed farmers. That and we produce FAR FAR too much of the wrong sort of foods because of the CAP.

er, who does what because of the who, which stopping would make what better?

[budda]

er, who does what because of the who, which stopping would make what better?

The CAP, or common agricultural policy, basically put it pays farmers to produce things that no one wants so they can be destroyed. Its great really, it knackers farm land in the EU, costs billions of euros a year and excludes Third World farmers.

[Toadborg]

I'd have thought that was obvious. It has had no poisonous chemicals sprayed on it.

:confused:

You mean that eating non-organic veg is likely to lead to me being poisoned?

Of course not......

Like I said, people are conned into thinking that things which are more 'natural' are 'better' which is the same wooly thinking that leads people to alternative medicine etc

[Blagsta]

:confused:

You mean that eating non-organic veg is likely to lead to me being poisoned?

Of course not......

So you don't think that pesticides are poisons? What do you think they are then? :confused:

Like I said, people are conned into thinking that things which are more 'natural' are 'better' which is the same wooly thinking that leads people to alternative medicine etc

Eh? :confused: Who mentioned anything about things being better because they are natural? Please stick to the topic in hand.

[puss-in-boots]

I also read that the mums had said that they couldn't afford the £3.75 a day...
Hey, can't feed em, don't breed em!

I can sort of understand, if they're not allowed out then they spend most of the lunch time queing and by the time you get there, theres not much left.
Isn't there a system in place? At every school I've ever been to (infant, junior & secondary) there was a rotating system - eg. for week 1 Class A would get their dinner first, Class B second, & Class C third. Then in week 2 Class B would get theirs first & Class C would get theirs second while Class A would eat last. And if they're spending all lunchtime queing they need new kitchen staff - it shouldn't take that long to stick some food on a line of plates...

[Sofie]

Isn't there a system in place? At every school I've ever been to (infant, junior & secondary) there was a rotating system - eg. for week 1 Class A would get their dinner first, Class B second, & Class C third. Then in week 2 Class B would get theirs first & Class C would get theirs second while Class A would eat last. And if they're spending all lunchtime queing they need new kitchen staff - it shouldn't take that long to stick some food on a line of plates...

We have no such thing. We do however have 2 canteens. One is meant to be for 'lower school' (years 7-9) and one for 'upper school' (years 10-14)

[Kermit]

Who gives a toss about it being "rotating", for two weeks out of three you're stuck eating food that has been abandoned under a warm light for upwards of 30 minutes.

[CptCoatHanger]

:confused:

You mean that eating non-organic veg is likely to lead to me being poisoned?

Of course not......

Like I said, people are conned into thinking that things which are more 'natural' are 'better' which is the same wooly thinking that leads people to alternative medicine etc

No, chances are eating non-organic veg won't kill you, in the same way that me pissing in your mouth won't either.

[Blagsta]

Hey, can't feed em, don't breed em!

If only life were so simple.

[Ballerina]

Hey, can't feed em, don't breed em!


Isn't there a system in place? At every school I've ever been to (infant, junior & secondary) there was a rotating system - eg. for week 1 Class A would get their dinner first, Class B second, & Class C third. Then in week 2 Class B would get theirs first & Class C would get theirs second while Class A would eat last. And if they're spending all lunchtime queing they need new kitchen staff - it shouldn't take that long to stick some food on a line of plates...

at my primary school there was, at secondary there wasn't. We had a 40 minute lunch break and in that time 1500 kids are going to the canteen for dinner. I gave up trying to eat lunch while i was there and just had a snack.

[Knee High Stripy Socks]

Don't any of these kids take a pack-up? I had 11 years of peanut butter sandwiches and apples for lunch at school!

[CptCoatHanger]

Don't any of these kids take a pack-up? I had 11 years of peanut butter sandwiches and apples for lunch at school!

I'm sure they do, they're just likely to have cheese strings (they're made with real cheese honest guv'), crisps and a block of lard in them.

[Sofie]

Don't any of these kids take a pack-up? I had 11 years of peanut butter sandwiches and apples for lunch at school!

I do and have always taken one. It's much easier and does mean that I don't have to find somewhere to sit to eat my food.

[puss-in-boots]

at my primary school there was, at secondary there wasn't. We had a 40 minute lunch break and in that time 1500 kids are going to the canteen for dinner. I gave up trying to eat lunch while i was there and just had a snack.
I guess we were lucky at my secondary as it had 2 main buildings (plus PE block & technology block) because it used to be 2 different schools (a grammer & a comprehensive) & when they abolished the old system they got lumped together as one school. So some years went to one building & the rest to the other. Then within each building you got divided into 'sittings'.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Don't any of these kids take a pack-up? I had 11 years of peanut butter sandwiches and apples for lunch at school!

Word. I had Ham, Turke, or Beef sandwhiches, with crisps, chocolate bar, and some fruit. Plus a bottle of Orange Juice (Often spiked with something to make time pass better by myself.)

[Sofie]

Did wonder when this would happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5373018.stm

[Aladdin]

See, I'm on two minds about the above piece. On the one hand you can see why some people would get quite pissed off about what appears to be nanny state interfering with folks' affairs. But on the other hand, if you're trying to change your kid's habits and 'trick' them into eating healthy stuff you could certainly do with some advice.

[Kermit]

There's nothing wrong with providing information and advice, because some people do need it, but the problem is that they always have to go one step beyond and start ordering people about.

To be honest, I never liked eating school dinners in the canteen, and preferred a packed lunch so I had more time to attempt to play football.

[katralla]

Word. I had Ham, Turke, or Beef sandwhiches, with crisps, chocolate bar, and some fruit. Plus a bottle of Orange Juice (Often spiked with something to make time pass better by myself.)

That wouldn't be allowed or at least frowned upon in many schools now. The chocolate and crisps might even get removed. What would you have spiked orange juice with?

[Sofie]

There's nothing wrong with providing information and advice, because some people do need it, but the problem is that they always have to go one step beyond and start ordering people about.

Agreed

To be honest, I never liked eating school dinners in the canteen, and preferred a packed lunch so I had more time to attempt to play football.

Same here. Sometimes in primary school, I used to spend nearly the whole dinner hour lining up just for dinner and never had time for anything else...