Guvment Diet

[Brian Peacock]

@42.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure what distinction you're applying between underfeeding and overfeeding, or whether you consider malnutrition impossible in overfed children. Let me tell you where I'm coming from.

We both agree that the state's child-focused service have a role to play in ensuring the well-being of children - as is clear and obvious in cases of starvation or physical abuse. It's true that crimes have to be committed first before the state intervenes with criminal prosecution (accepting that crime is a legal definition to begin with), but in cases of child abuse bars for state intervention are generally set towards the low side - for some good reasons I think. This may mean that some parents are unduly subject to some form of challenge or investigation, and while I can understand the frustration and, indeed, anger that may cause where nothing untoward has occurred we (collectively) are mindful of the fact that the majority of child abuse takes place within the private setting of the family home and thus the state has to encroach upon that domain if the facts are to be assured and the vulnerable are to be protected. It's a quandary. We may not like the idea of the state stomping into our family homes and challenging us about our parenting practice, but we know that it's sometimes needed and are perhaps mollified by the comforting thought that this kind of state intrusion generally happens to other people.

if you can accept state intervention in parenting in the interests of the well-being of the child, at least in principle, then whether a child is being beaten or starved becomes irrelevant. What I'm suggesting is that that routine overfeeding of children with foodstuffs which predispose them to future harm also warrants some state intervention - now, whether that intervention takes the form of criminal proceedings is perhaps another matter: education may be just as useful. Nonetheless, I think the principle stands. Children have little control over the circumstances of their own upbringing and the state should be, at the very least, watchful for signs of harm. Your bone of contention appears to be that the state should limit itself to circumstances where harm has occurred while I'm suggesting that the possibility of harm, or the potential for harm to occur, is worth flagging up before it escalates to something more serious and/or damaging.

I think the debate about the 'healthiness' of various foodstuffs is, in itself, also irrelevant: I don't consider any foodstuff intrinsically unhealthy or harmful (other than reactive allergens and toxins) but continuous consumption to certain food-types become increasingly harmful over time - to a greater and lesser degree. I think the state has some responsibility to monitor child health as well as to educate parents and the operators of child-focused services about healthy nutrition, as appropriate.

I also think there's a certain level of paranoia which exists around the presumed 'dangers' of certain food-types and foodstuffs - and this may be a consequence of a diet industry which often focuses on bad vs good foods, i.e. burgers bad, carrot sticks good; processed chicken pieces bad, bean salad good; your cuisine bad, our scientifically prepared meal replacement shakes good, etc. Doughnuts and Doritos are not unhealthy, but relying on them for one's nutritional requirements is.

Nobody should be criminalised just for sending their child to school with a packet of Doritos, but then again, if a child is relying just on a packet of Doritos to see them through the day then perhaps the matter should be brought up with the parents. I also think that schools who are trying to create an environment where healthy eating messages can be actively promoted then sending children to school with a packet of Doritos for lunch makes it very difficult to be consistent. Unfortunately some school administrations take the view that they exercise absolute moral authority, not only over the children in their care but over their parents as well. That kind of attitude rarely sits will with anyone other than the school administration. As this article shows, when 'unhealthy' foods are banned from schools parents will often take exception, and matters into their own hands - but ultimately efforts to promote healthy eating habits in children should continue, as far as possible, in the hope that they will ultimately prevail into adulthood. The public health benefits of this are pretty obvious.

[Brian Peacock]

Shut up and eat your Soylent.

[rainbow]

No, of course not. I was obviously making a joke there, about how kids don't eat anything they're "told" to eat, at least not without massive amounts of cajoling, negotiating and/or threatening.

Not in Africa.

Here they are grateful to gnaw on the bones that drop off our plate.
...or they can eat roots.

I blame the black cis-male, hetero-normative, Afro-centric, patriarchy.

Where is the problem?
Why should there to be someone to blame?

Clearly you are looking for an issue to advance your neo-liberal colonialist agenda.
Imperialist!

[rainbow]

[Forty Two]

@42.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure what distinction you're applying between underfeeding and overfeeding, or whether you consider malnutrition impossible in overfed children. Let me tell you where I'm coming from.

My distinction was between prior restraints on the one hand (prohibiting parents from deciding what to feed their kids, or mandating particular diets) versus setting up conditions or actions that unambiguously constitute a crime and then enforcing the rule when broken. So, a malnourished kid, or an overfed kid, or an underfed kid, is not the same thing as a kid who is allowed to eat hot dogs and ice cream.

We both agree that the state's child-focused service have a role to play in ensuring the well-being of children - as is clear and obvious in cases of starvation or physical abuse.

Not really, I don't think we exactly agree on that, insofar as the role I see the state playing is to enforce laws which are written so as to provide reasonable notice to people as to what is and is not prohibited. If pizza is lawful to eat, then having some bureaucrat or teacher have discretion to determine if my provision of pizza to my kids is o.k. is not an appropriate role. Setting up a law defining what exactly malnutrition means and then enforcing that law when parents allow their kids to become malnourished is an appropriate role. A "government diet" is not an appropriate role, because the government has no expertise in this area, and there is too much politics involved in such policies. Once the government can set a diet, some progressives will swoop in and claim that feeding kids meat is child abuse.

It's true that crimes have to be committed first before the state intervenes with criminal prosecution (accepting that crime is a legal definition to begin with), but in cases of child abuse bars for state intervention are generally set towards the low side - for some good reasons I think.

I object to a bar which allows the government to set a diet. Maybe some folks think eggs aren't good to eat. Prohibiting eggs is not the place of the government, IMO. Prohibiting malnutrition might be, depending on how that is defined.

This may mean that some parents are unduly subject to some form of challenge or investigation, and while I can understand the frustration and, indeed, anger that may cause where nothing untoward has occurred we (collectively) are mindful of the fact that the majority of child abuse takes place within the private setting of the family home and thus the state has to encroach upon that domain if the facts are to be assured and the vulnerable are to be protected. It's a quandary.

Unduly subject to some form of challenge? How so? Is a ham and cheese sandwich and a small bag of doritos allowed, or isn't it? If it is, who is the teacher to challenge? The teacher thinks too many such lunches have been provided?

To me, the kind of law you're talking about is a recipe for arbitrary and capricious enforcement. Under the American system, we are used to a term called "substantive due process" and what that means is that criminal laws cannot be crafted too vaguely (i.e. such that it's not clear what exactly is prohibited), and cannot be overly broad (i.e. encompassing activities which are protected by the constitution), and cannot be "ambiguous" (ie that the meaning of the law is unclear in advance. I.e. the criminal law must be understandable, and give fair notice to the people about what conduct is prohibited. So, when enforcement becomes arbitrary, based on the vicissitudes or subjective interpretation of ministerial government officials or teachers, then it's not very good criminal law. People violate it without knowing. Example - making a law calling it criminal child abuse to fail to feed your kids a healthy, proper diet is vague, overly broad and ambiguous, and subject to arbitrary and capricious application. Making a law that says hot dogs are illegal is not ambiguous, not vague and not subject to arbitrary and capricious application.

In other words - tell us what is illegal. Then we're on notice not to do it. Fuck off with bullshit "reasonable nutrition" requirements, or subjective judgments of some dopey 5th grade teacher who likely doesn't know much about nutrition anyway.

We may not like the idea of the state stomping into our family homes and challenging us about our parenting practice, but we know that it's sometimes needed and are perhaps mollified by the comforting thought that this kind of state intrusion generally happens to other people.

Sure, set clear limits. But what limits are there? Just because there is room for some government action doesn't mean there ought to be room for any government action. And, whatever limits are set, let's let them be limits that can be understood and which provide fair notice in advance as to what conduct is prohibited.

if you can accept state intervention in parenting in the interests of the well-being of the child, at least in principle, then whether a child is being beaten or starved becomes irrelevant.

Beating and starving are different than "government diets."

What I'm suggesting is that that routine overfeeding of children with foodstuffs which predispose them to future harm also warrants some state intervention - now,

How can it? How does a teacher know whether a child is being overfed "now?" Because I sent the kid to school today with a salami sandwich, Cheetos and whole milk? Is that enough? I mean, if salami sandwiches and whole milk are not acceptable, shouldn't they be specifically prohibited? If not, then what's the enforcement mechanism, other than the rather non-expert judgment of a 5th grade grammar school teacher....?

whether that intervention takes the form of criminal proceedings is perhaps another matter: education may be just as useful.

Which education? The food pyramid? The old one or the new one? Is fruit good or bad? How much? Is meat o.k. to eat? How much? What about fish? Mercury levels and all... The reality is that the government will pick a politicized food schedule which will cater to the interests of different industries - such that breads will be recommended, and certain levels of juice and milk. The government sets up confusing and rather useless informational labels, such as "servings" and certain supposed nutrient contents - is that what the parents will be educated on?

Nonetheless, I think the principle stands. Children have little control over the circumstances of their own upbringing and the state should be, at the very least, watchful for signs of harm.

Only if you grant the state the capacity to effectively do that, which I don't. The state is good at enforcing violations of defined, understandable, unambiguous activities. The state is dangerous when enforcing vague, ambiguous standards which are subject to massive individual differences of subjective interpretation.

Your bone of contention appears to be that the state should limit itself to circumstances where harm has occurred while I'm suggesting that the possibility of harm, or the potential for harm to occur, is worth flagging up before it escalates to something more serious and/or damaging.

Sure, feeding kids salads from those salad bags comes with it the possibility of e coli and other contamination, and potential harms. If I go to a hamburger joint, for example, and order food, the last thing I'm getting there is a salad. I want the well-done cooked hamburger before their salad any day of the week.

In other words, what's the test for intervention? If all we're saying here is that the state should prohibit certain things as crimes or other infractions when there is good reason to do so and they can do so within the constitutional limits of state power, then sure. We agree. But, the devil is in the details.

I think the debate about the 'healthiness' of various foodstuffs is, in itself, also irrelevant: I don't consider any foodstuff intrinsically unhealthy or harmful (other than reactive allergens and toxins) but continuous consumption to certain food-types become increasingly harmful over time - to a greater and lesser degree.

Well, to enforce something like that, you'll have to set limits on the number of hamburgers are acceptable per week or month. Is that really the level of detail we want the government to be involved in?

I think the state has some responsibility to monitor child health as well as to educate parents and the operators of child-focused services about healthy nutrition, as appropriate.

monitor
educate

People have a right to privacy in their homes and families. The state has an obligation to enforce laws and those laws should be drafted such that people can know in advance what behavior is unlawful. As far as "educate" - do you really grant the state the expertise on this? I would suggest that educating people on what the law is, that would be reasonable. But, educating people like it's some sort of college diversity task force -- or the manager of Chotchkie's in Office Space...

I also think there's a certain level of paranoia which exists around the presumed 'dangers' of certain food-types and foodstuffs - and this may be a consequence of a diet industry which often focuses on bad vs good foods, i.e. burgers bad, carrot sticks good; processed chicken pieces bad, bean salad good; your cuisine bad, our scientifically prepared meal replacement shakes good, etc. Doughnuts and Doritos are not unhealthy, but relying on them for one's nutritional requirements is.

Nobody should be criminalised just for sending their child to school with a packet of Doritos, but then again, if a child is relying just on a packet of Doritos to see them through the day then perhaps the matter should be brought up with the parents.

Well, when the schools stop serving this at school, I'll consider taking their dietary advice --

But, I'm curious - how would you word a law that covers your concern here, such that parents know in advance what conduct is expected of them, short of telling them they can't send doritos to school with their kids, or can only do so if their kids BMI is under X, or short of limiting the number of times each month they can have the doritos?

I also think that schools who are trying to create an environment where healthy eating messages can be actively promoted then sending children to school with a packet of Doritos for lunch makes it very difficult to be consistent.

I find that comment difficult to reconcile with your statement that Doritos are not unhealthy, but are only unhealthy if relied upon alone or with other similar foods.

Unfortunately some school administrations take the view that they exercise absolute moral authority, not only over the children in their care but over their parents as well. That kind of attitude rarely sits will with anyone other than the school administration. As this article shows, when 'unhealthy' foods are banned from schools parents will often take exception, and matters into their own hands - but ultimately efforts to promote healthy eating habits in children should continue, as far as possible, in the hope that they will ultimately prevail into adulthood. The public health benefits of this are pretty obvious.

If you think the government has the capacity to define what a "healthy eating habit" is such that it will not involve arbitrary and capricious enforcement, then we differ there. The reason parents get pissed off with school administrations and their "healthy eating habit" enforcement efforts is because they are almost always hypocritical and internally inconsistent. You'll have them calling out a parent for a sandwich bagged lunch, but then making the kids eat chicken nuggets and french fries.... http://www.offthegridnews.com/how-to-2/ ... ts-served/

Mainly, this is one of those areas, in my opinion, where the State just makes matters worse.

It's also yet another area where parents' responsibility is being removed - i.e., after schools start providing breakfasts and lunches for kids, the parents start, more and more, leaning on the schools to handle this. No more wrestling with the kids to get them to sit nice and eat breakfast at home. No need to get them out of bed early to have time for breakfast. Now just drop them off at school or let them take the bus and they'll eat two meals there.

It also takes away, in my view, from the primary purpose of a school. A school is not in loco parentis to the point of being the supervising authority over day to day living. The school is there to teach the kids stuff they need to know, that will not effectively be taught at home. It's not a warehouse, or a day care, or a socialization mechanism to teach kids to be good cogs in the machine - or, at least it should not be. It should focus on a limited area of education, and do that well. Biting off too much is never a good thing.

[Forty Two]

No, of course not. I was obviously making a joke there, about how kids don't eat anything they're "told" to eat, at least not without massive amounts of cajoling, negotiating and/or threatening.

Not in Africa.

Here they are grateful to gnaw on the bones that drop off our plate.
...or they can eat roots.

I blame the black cis-male, hetero-normative, Afro-centric, patriarchy.

Where is the problem?
Why should there to be someone to blame?

Clearly you are looking for an issue to advance your neo-liberal colonialist agenda.
Imperialist!

Women and people lacking color are oppressed in the Afrocentric, patriarchal world that is dark continent. Did you know that African films rarely feature white actors in lead roles?

[rainbow]

Women and people lacking color are oppressed in the Afrocentric, patriarchal world that is dark continent.

Djy praat kak.

Did you know that African films rarely feature white actors in lead roles?

[Forty Two]

Only white heteronormative patriarchies exist, then. The rest is kak.

[Svartalf]

Kak is what you say, sorry to have to say so.

[Forty Two]

[laklak]

Fast food ads are killing us.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/opinions/ ... index.html

Next, we can learn from the war on tobacco. As scientific evidence mounted, legislators began to make widespread changes to the rules of marketing cigarettes. Similarly, research around obesity must influence the making and marketing of food. ...

Employing behavioral economic research, we can also be more innovative in our approach to convincing consumers to eat healthier. Things like the positioning of healthier products in cafeterias, the names the products are given and celebrity endorsement of healthy eating habits can all help drive us toward a future where food promotes wellness rather than disease.

Lol. I can just see George Clooney telling Little Tommy to eat his vegetables.

Fuck it, pile the fucking Big Macs and heroin up in the streets, free. The sooner the junkies and fatfucks are dead the cheaper it will be for the rest of us.

[Forty Two]

Indeed, just what we need the government to do, manage the placement of food products in private cafeterias, and determining what names products should have. Cheerios shouldn't be Cheerios, they should be Healthios. A hot dog shouldn't be a hot dog, it should be a "ground up real dead beef or pork tube."

[Forty Two]

One of the issues I have with this focus on "fast food" is the assumption that people are eating better than fast food at home. I mean, do we really think this? You can't have a hamburger, but you can make meatloaf at home? A hot dog is right out, but go full forward with the stuffed pasta shells full of ricotta cheese and sausage? That's "better" for you? On what basis?

What is actually going on out there? People would be eating fresh salads, steamed vegetables, and small side of broiled salmon everyday if it wasn't for the evil fast food companies?

[JimC]

One of the issues I have with this focus on "fast food" is the assumption that people are eating better than fast food at home. I mean, do we really think this? You can't have a hamburger, but you can make meatloaf at home? A hot dog is right out, but go full forward with the stuffed pasta shells full of ricotta cheese and sausage? That's "better" for you? On what basis?

What is actually going on out there? People would be eating fresh salads, steamed vegetables, and small side of broiled salmon everyday if it wasn't for the evil fast food companies?

Very misleading, these examples.

On average, fast food outlets produce food with less nutrition and more calories than home-cooked meals. That's where the argument lies, not with finding the inevitable exceptions.

[pErvinalia]

Indeed, just what we need the government to do, manage the placement of food products in private cafeterias,..

Not that I necessarily advocate it for food products, but they do this with tobacco here. There were probably a few libertarians that had a tantrum over it, but otherwise no one really cares.