Govt to sell your kids junk food

102 comments on “Govt to sell your kids junk food ”

• Comments are now closed

1. burt 1

   5 February 2009 at 1:23 pm

   Tane

   It’s not too late – you can delete this thread and pretend that you never posted such tripe.
2. Pat 2

   5 February 2009 at 1:24 pm

   On the planet where I live the responsibilty for feeding children rests with parents.
3. Tane 3

   5 February 2009 at 1:24 pm

   I see you haven’t improved over the break, burt. Do you think the state should be selling our kids junk food?
4. higherstandard 4

   5 February 2009 at 1:29 pm

   Tane

   Why should schools be required to feed kids healthy foods when their parents aren’t ?

   I’m sure you’re also aware that what is and isn’t served in schools is controlled to a large extent by the respective school boards – I’m still on the board of the school where my kids went to primary and we have for many years not allowed fizzy drinks, sweets etc etc to be brought to school for lunches – tis a bit more difficult however to stop teenagers from popping to the dairy or fast food outlet before, during or after school.

   Unfortunately you can’t legislate to stop people feeding themselves garbage.

   Let’s allow the schools to concentrate on what they’re there for teaching the kids rather than mandating what they can and can’t serve in tuck shops (within reason) – after all even if you did most of the toerags would be down the road to MacDonalds …..unless you want the state to provide subsidised lunch food to kids to change behaviour .. even then it’s a hard road to hoe.
5. LJae 5

   5 February 2009 at 1:37 pm

   Predictably on KiwiBlog they are celebrating this little move. In my heart I have been trying so hard not to mock DF about his weight problem, but really to be honest I can’t. His post was so gleeful he almost made it sound like he was barred from the tuckshop.
6. Greg 6

   5 February 2009 at 1:37 pm

   Tane,

   Who makes better decisions about their children – the government or their parents?

   And anyway, why should the government be fun police.
7. Mike 7

   5 February 2009 at 1:40 pm

   Can’t you just feel the freedom!
   The public health service will certainly feel it in the coming decades (if of course we still have one).
   Now if only Tolley would remove the ban on selling beer and cigarettes to over 18s in schools.
   If she really does believe in freedom of choice she must.
8. Tigger 8

   5 February 2009 at 1:41 pm

   What major compliance saving will this make? This is nothing to do with red tape and everything to do with big business creating another generation of junk food craving citizens. National, stop the PR spin – we know who owns you.

   And aren’t schools supposed to be about excellence? Why shouldn’t they serve the best food they can? What is wrong with that – were schools going crazy and only allowing carrot sticks and strained prunes? And if kids want to go off-site (the fast food place near our work is crawling with school kids today) then so be it.
9. vidiot 9

   5 February 2009 at 1:41 pm

   or they could just ban all school tuck shops and force parents to make lunch for their kids. Much simpler plan and imagine the cost savings to me had too.
10. Mr moon 10

    5 February 2009 at 1:44 pm

    I wonder how many tons of fat Tolley has just added to NZ schools.
11. Matthew Pilott 11

    5 February 2009 at 1:54 pm

    “On the planet where I live the responsibilty for feeding children rests with parents.

    When you were at school did Mum or Dad come down and feed you at morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea?

    Wow. Crazy planet you got there, Pat.

    And to everyone else who talks about it being the parents’ responsibility – I guess you guys had it so much easier than most of normal western humanity, whereby kids at school either take lunch or buy lunch there. I can’t believe that so many of our regular commentors got fed (or feed their kids themselves) three times a day. I hope you all live close to school, getting there three times a day to make the right choice for your kid must be hard.

    Greg – food with a high sodium, sugar and fat content isn’t automatically ‘fun’. Unless you think fat kids are ‘fun’ and are happy the government is encouraging kids to be fat. In which case I feel vaguely worried by the context of your ‘fun’ with fat kids, but I’ll leave that well alone.

    Incidentally, I reckon driving drunk might be a real riot. Driving is fun, drinking is fun also, therefore drink driving must be double plus super fun. Damn gummint ‘fun’ police eh, Greg?
12. toad 12

    5 February 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Must be the influence of Gerry Brownlee and Judith Collins coming to the fore.
13. @ work 13

    5 February 2009 at 1:55 pm

    “Greg

    Who makes better decisions about their children – the government or their parents?”

    With the state of kids these days, obviously not the children or the parents.
14. Brett Dale 14

    5 February 2009 at 1:58 pm

    So we have a government that is going to let parents take responsibility for their kids, about freakin time. Good for schools who should be able to raise money by being allowed to have cake stalls and such.

    I wonder how many pro dope politicians from the Green party will come out and say this is a bad idea.
15. Greg 15

    5 February 2009 at 2:09 pm

    “With the state of kids these days, obviously not the children or the parents.”

    If you really believe that, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
16. QoT 16

    5 February 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Here’s what’s puzzling me – the number of people saying “Yay Tolley, we need to trust parents!”

    Guys … I don’t know why this should need explaining, but parents don’t buy the lunch from the tuckshop. The kids do. And no matter how stringently Mummy or Daddy has declared, “This lunch money is for a sandwich and an orange juice, right, Child?” the prospect of pies/warmed Cookie Time cookies (hello, my high-school weight gain)/sausage rolls/Coke is going to win out a lot of the time in a still-developing brain.
17. Tigger 17

    5 February 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Brett – when were schools banned from having cake stalls? I went to at least three fairs last year and all seemed mysteriously unaffected by your supposed ban…
18. Brett Dale 18

    5 February 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Tigger:

    I wouldnt tell anyone in the Labour party or the Greens.
19. burt 19

    5 February 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Tane

    Do you think the state should be selling our kids junk food?

    Perhaps I misunderstood the point of education I thought it was about teaching people how to make good choices . Not making choices for them.

    I had an interesting conversation with the local school last year. As part of their being “socially responsible’ they removed all “bad’ food from their school lunch menu and replaced it with “healthy choices’. Being typical reactionary followers of trends they also changed the availability from 5 days a week to 3 days a week. This sort of stupidity needed to be pointed out to them. In an effort to encourage health eating they decided that healthy choices should only be available 3 days a week . Surely if the school lunches are healthy they should be available 5 days a week perhaps even compulsory 5 days a week ..

    It comes down to what we are trying to achieve Tane, is it a society that makes good choices or a society restricted to behave as the govt de-jour dictates?

    Oh BTW Is coffee healthy or unhealthy at the moment? Is it carcinogenic or antioxidant? It’s flip flopped over the years and I’m not sure if I should force my kids to drink it or ban them from ever having it ? Please advise.
20. higherstandard 20

    5 February 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Tigger

    Indeed because most schools ignored the idiocy of the legislation.

    Burt coffee enemas are very in vogue at present – best not to raise it with the school board though !

    Does anyone have a link to what the minister’s statement actually was ?
21. adamsmith1922 21

    5 February 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Whilst the post headline was ‘fun’ I thought school tuck shops were run by the schools and that the money went to the school. Further I think you will find that schools are still enjoined to promote healthy eating.

    Thus I might venture to suggest that your line Govt to sell kids junk food is not in fact correct.
22. higherstandard 22

    5 February 2009 at 2:48 pm

    Here it is – seems pretty reasonable to me …. but then many here would suggest I’m not a reasonable person.

    http://beehive.govt.nz/release/schools+no+longer+required+be+food+police
23. Tigger 23

    5 February 2009 at 2:53 pm

    Are any schools even run by boards any more…I thought this and the former government had installed managers overseeing half the schools out there…

    Personally I can eat anything I want and not put on weight so if we’re talking personal responsibility then fine – I’ll take responsibility for me. But it’s the wee David Farrar’s of the world that my heart goes out to…they’re the ones we need to make decisions for because obviously they can’t make healthy eating decisions for themselves…
24. Brett Dale 24

    5 February 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Why dont parents make their own kids lunches them?

    [yeah fine, why not? But that’s not the topic, Brett. The question is why should the State be selling unhealthy food to kids for a profit? SP]
25. Alex 25

    5 February 2009 at 3:09 pm

    The problem is that in a lot of schools (if not all – I’m not sure, certainly the ones my kids go to) the canteen is run by a private caterer. Under this scheme these businesses would have been forced to sell food that kids don’t like when they can just go across the road and buy anything they want from the local dairy. It would have been pointless legislation and as a lot of comments here have pointed out its really just none of the states business.
26. Steve Pierson 26

    5 February 2009 at 3:18 pm

    HS. you should be a ashamed of yourself, your a medicial professional and you’re supporting the State making a profit off selling unhealthy foods to children.
27. Rex Widerstrom 27

    5 February 2009 at 3:19 pm

    The State requires too much of too many already.

    Just who are these wanton fat pushers, Tane? Boards of Trustees, who are parents themselves? Teachers? Principals? The cafeteria staff?

    I wish it were not so, but if kids want Coke and lollies then they’ll go to the dairy and purchase it there, just like in winter we occasionally sneaked out of school to buy fish and chips.

    Encourage, by all means. Reward good behaviour, yes. But I (and I suspect a lot of other people) have had quite enough of being “required” to do or not do this and that by some bureaucrat infused with their own petty power.

    Oh, and Tigger, toad et al… yeah, perhaps Tolley or Farrar went to the same school as Parekura Horomia and are just traumatised by the fact he kept stealing all the pies. Fat jokes are so funny, huh?
28. @ work 28

    5 February 2009 at 3:21 pm

    If parents really wanted there kids to eat such crap food they would put it in thier lunch box themselves.
29. Santi 29

    5 February 2009 at 3:29 pm

    “Do you think the state should be selling our kids junk food?”

    Your argument based on that question is flawed, Tane.

    The state should have no mandate on what you can consume. It’s the parents’ responsibility to provide their children with nutritious and healthy meals.

    Your Green Party activist streak is for all to see here: controllist and authoritarian.
30. Tigger 30

    5 February 2009 at 3:48 pm

    Rex – no fat jokes here (I likes my big men, even married one) just pointing out the idiocy of Farrar decrying ‘food police’ when he’s a walking example of how the ‘food police’ get traction.
31. BLiP 31

    5 February 2009 at 3:57 pm

    How can anyone be genuinely surprised? This is the same government that allowed a McDonalds into Starship.
32. Steve Pierson 32

    5 February 2009 at 4:10 pm

    santi. “It’s the parents’ responsibility to provide their children with nutritious and healthy meals.” sure but it’s not the question is it? the question is whether the State should be selling unhealthy food.
33. Tripod 33

    5 February 2009 at 4:13 pm

    The people who celebrate Tolley’s folly will be the same ones bitching about having to pay for a public health system overloaded with patients with obesity related diseases such as diabetes in the future.

    I mean, saying the kids are going to sneak off to buy junk food anyway is a bit pointless. That’s a bit like saying it’s OK for schools to sell cigarettes because the kids will just go get them from the dairy anyway.

    The obesity epidemic is going to be the biggest health issue over the next few decades.
34. Steve Pierson 34

    5 February 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Tripod. It’s also a bit like saying because gangs can get guns it’s alright for the State to sell guns to them.
35. burt 35

    5 February 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Steve P.

    It’s a bit like saying if we ban the production and sale of cannabis people won’t be able to get it or smoke it. Oh… hang on….

    Obesity epidemic – is obesity contagious ?
36. @ work 36

    5 February 2009 at 4:29 pm

    burt:

    “Obesity epidemic – is obesity contagious ?”

    Not in the strict sense of the word, but sort of. Murkier than a yes or no answer.
37. Steve Pierson 37

    5 February 2009 at 4:32 pm

    burt. your analogy is flawed. sure, people can still get cannibis but does that mean the Government should be selling it?

    you’re like fish in a barrel, burt.
38. higherstandard 38

    5 February 2009 at 4:33 pm

    SP

    You’re a complete moron. Read my post in relation to the school board I serve on and furthermore read the minister’s release and take your head out of your arse.
39. Steve Pierson 39

    5 February 2009 at 4:35 pm

    care to elaborate HS?

    Am I a moron for saying that the State shouldn’t be making a profit off selling unhealthy foods to kids? If so, why?
40. burt 40

    5 February 2009 at 4:36 pm

    hs

    Banning things that people want simply puts the price up and increases the social consequences of their consumption. The lefties don’t want to acknowledge this because they like to think they are in control.
41. burt 41

    5 February 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Steve P.

    Re: Cigarettes – which organisation makes the most profit from tobacco sales?

    The manufacturer ? The retailer? The govt via taxes?

    The cost of duty free tobacco gives you the answer. So the state is profiting from selling tobacco. – Is that OK with you Steve P?
42. Steve Pierson 42

    5 February 2009 at 4:41 pm

    burt. The state is not selling the cigerettes, it is putting a sin tax on them to discourage their use rather than banning them. That’s a totally different situation to selling something.

    “Banning things that people want simply puts the price up and increases the social consequences of their consumption.” – therefore, you disagree wtih banning anything? Assault rifles? child prostitutes? No, of course, you agree there are things that ought to be banned. The question is only what should be banend in what situations. And It seems to me obvious that with unhealthy food causing major problems for our population, we shouldn’t want them to be fed it, at a profit, by the State.
43. burt 43

    5 February 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Steve P.

    Do you have kids of your own at school and therefore fully understand the issues or are you just being idealistic about this?
44. higherstandard 44

    5 February 2009 at 4:52 pm

    care to elaborate HS?

    Yes grab both ears and pull downwards forcibly while tensing your abdominal muscles.

    Burt – you know the answer to that he’s a silly little boy that thinks he can solve all the worlds ills and spends most of the time inhabiting his own colon.
45. gingercrush 45

    5 February 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Is anyone else grasping at straws why the left consider this is a tragedy but at the same time confused by the right celebrating this?
46. Steve Pierson 46

    5 February 2009 at 5:00 pm

    burt. do you have a child in prison? No? Do you still have a right to have an opinion on prison issues? Yes? Have you ever had an abortion? No? Do you still hve a right to have an opinion on abortion issues? Yes? Funny that.

    HS. You can do better than that. Really, you can. Burt can’t because Burt’s not smart enough, but you are.
47. ieuan 47

    5 February 2009 at 5:05 pm

    I am lost as to why anyone would celebrate this.

    Is it because the state have given back a little bit of freedom – is that it?

    Freedom to do what?

    Freedom to feed our kids junk food at school so they can grow up fat with the associated health problems.

    Is that what is being celebrated?

    Sad.
48. higherstandard 48

    5 February 2009 at 5:11 pm

    SP

    Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

    As I stated previously I am on a school board we have rules regarding what kids are or aren’t allowed in their lunch boxes as we have rules about mobile phones, ipods etc etc ………we also only allow certain foods to be sold at school……. we do not need a a regulatory sledgehammer that will achieve not one iota to change the obesity epidemic……. which might better be described people being slothful, lazy gluttons.

    We are however realistic in that whatever can be done for these kids at school they will likely be far more influenced by what is happening at home.

    Ps your,you’re their, they’re and there…. you’re back into your old habits
49. Jimbo 49

    5 February 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Good move. When I left school this banning of anything decent in the tuck shop nonsense was just coming in. For me, being able to get a coke, a pie and one of those gaigantic rubbery killer crocs once a week made school more enjoyable and more like the real world.

    Forcing kids to eat only “healthy food”, and denying them legal products that are otherwise available in the real world just build up resentment about school and authority. It’s patronising to take the choice away from kids. As others have said, kids will just get the just food from other sources (and/or go crazy when they’ve left school).

    No problem with government “making a profit” out of selling junk food. It’s not like government’s wealth is spaffed at the casino – they’ll spend the “profit” on education, dealth, defense etc., so no harm done.
50. SBlount 50

    5 February 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Steve,

    The govt takes GST everytime someone buys KFC. Restaurant Brands even pays them rates to let them do it.

    Schools are perfectly able to sell healthy food at their canteen, neither are they forced to sell bad food.. They never needed a law to do this. Of course you can’t define ‘healthy’ in a law either, Steve Gurney liked a pie after events, was that unhealthy?

    The people who can prevent the ‘obesity epidemic’ are parents and private citizens. The government can’t do your exercising for you. Kids these days have higher rates of participation in organized sport than previous generations.
51. northpaw 51

    5 February 2009 at 5:54 pm

    burt,

    sod the coffee, lookout for the water you’re making the so-called beveridge with
52. burt 52

    5 February 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Steve P.

    I’m a little confused. You seem to be taking the position that banning such foods in schools is good because it stops the govt from profiting in the sale of unhealthy foods?

    I don’t see this as a profit issue. If goods are being sold ‘somebody’ will profit. So will banning the sale of pies in schools reduce pie consumption? Most likely over time it will, so yes. I also wonder if the best solution to obesity now is to force more young people today into the dairies where there are hundreds of other ‘bad choices’. Choices way more addictive than a stogy pie.

    There’s no denying that society would be better off if less people were overweight. Educate the parents, look at the reality of it. Let the kids have a pie one day a week at school, stack their lunch box full of healthy stuff the other four days. What more can you do?

    My generation is way less obese than today’s and in my primary schools fish and chips (big serves) were the norm on Friday. It’s not the pies that are causing the obesity problems Steve.
53. Peter Burns 53

    5 February 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Not to mention the free flavored milk that we enjoyed as primary school kids. Those were the good old days before pc and the sisterhood feminazi pigs, NEVER to be repeated!!
54. toad 54

    5 February 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Following the logic of burt and some others on this thread: piss, dak, smack, coke and P should be available through the school tuckshop too.

    You know, to help the kids who are bored or overtired through those difficult afternoons!

    It is all the parents’ choice, and they should trust their kids will spend their money wisely at the school tuckshop and not lie to them about what they have bought.

    I feel a Tui ad coming on.
55. higherstandard 55

    5 February 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Following your logic toad the moon is made of cheese and we should all build our houses out of dung.
56. Brett Dale 56

    5 February 2009 at 7:51 pm

    toad:

    Who the heck said piss, dak, smack, coke and P should be made available through public schools?

    People are just saying, its up to parents.
57. burt 57

    5 February 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Steve P.

    Oh and as for ‘What more can you do?’. Kids need regular exercise just as much as parents do. Physical activity is the key Steve, people won’t stop eating pies completely because they are fit, but they will notice the impact a stogy pie has on their metabolism. Forcing lazy people to eat ‘good food’ will only improve their complexion.

    toad

    Here is your Tui add. ‘Banning alcohol stops people drinking’.
58. Joseph 58

    5 February 2009 at 8:07 pm

    A view from someone in their final year of school, here.

    I was greatly saddened in year 10 when coke dissapeared from the tuckshop. However, I pass two dairies and a supermarket on my way to school that sell these things (and much cheaper, I may add). This legislation is close to useless. If people are determined to eat healthy, they’re going to do so. If somene is determined to eat McDonalds everyday, they will. The governments place is not in macromanagement, it’s in guranteeing our freedom, and (imo) providing social welfare, and healthcare.

    If you really consider yourself left, you have to be anti-authoritarian and pro-market regulation.
59. Joseph 59

    5 February 2009 at 8:08 pm

    Erp, double post.
60. Rex Widerstrom 60

    5 February 2009 at 9:01 pm

    ieuan suggests:

    Freedom to feed our kids junk food at school so they can grow up fat with the associated health problems.

    Why, yes. I’ve just come from a meeting of the VRWC obesity sub-committee (our chairperson was delayed due to being unable to find the obligatory white cat to stroke, other members having immediately cornered the market to sell to school tuck shops as pie filling).

    We just can’t wait to reinstall those conveyor belts on which we strap the little sods so we can cackle maniacally as we force feed them cakes and pies.

    Because that’s the evil plan, of course. The plan to which canteen workers, principals and board members are all party, being heartless profiteers unconcerned with the welfare of their charges. The plan from which only brave Nanny Helen could save those slack-jawed moronic parents and their waddling little spawn, and they forsook her!

    Bwahahaha!!

    Tigger: Fair enough. But when last heard of DPF was walking up Hawkins Hill of his own volition!! Could it be that people can be motivated by something other than sanctions, bans, punishments and fines?! Perhaps we’ll have a chance to find out.

    [lprent: I’m exercising a lot more as well. However I wouldn’t say that it was entirely of my own volition. Lyn insists. Perhaps you should consider that as amended to “…and fines by the government?!”]
61. burt 61

    5 February 2009 at 9:04 pm

    What Joseph and Rex said.
62. lukas 62

    5 February 2009 at 10:01 pm

    toad
    February 5, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Following the logic of burt and some others on this thread: piss, dak, smack, coke and P should be available through the school tuckshop too

    I think I read that in a green policy statement recently, well at least the dak bit.
63. Janet 63

    5 February 2009 at 10:30 pm

    H/S
    Why are you still on the board of a school that your children no longer attend?. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to move on and let someone else have a turn? You could offer to support or mentor a parent who has children currently at the school so they could have a go at governance too.
64. toad 64

    5 February 2009 at 10:41 pm

    lukas said: I think I read that in a green policy statement recently, well at least the dak bit.

    Decriminlised, not legalised, lukas. The distribution for sale would still be an offence under Green policy. The possesion (by adults) for personal use would not.

    And the Greens would actually get tougher on the penalties for anyone who supplies it to someone under 18 – just like the alcohol law is now (if it were properly enforced, which is another issue).
65. ak 65

    5 February 2009 at 10:56 pm

    Fascinating discussion on a matter of prime import and a poignant reminder of the inevitable progressive evolution as the traditional tory “let them eat cake” attitude morphs into the “down-trickling-bigger-pie-slice” theory.
    Wee Johnny digests his first taste of hangi on pita, Hide, Borrows and Awatere personify capitalism’s inherent demand-side-strangle contradiction (and its grotesque results) while Tolley coins the new tory mantra: “we won, you lost, eat pies”. Policy in a minute.
66. Rex Widerstrom 66

    5 February 2009 at 11:26 pm

    ak:

    Tolley coins the new tory mantra: “we won, you lost, eat pies’.

    When Crosby / Textor can come up with a line a quarter as good as that one, I’ll start to credit them with the incredible powers attributed to them by SP and others.

    Well played, Sir (or Ma’am).
67. tsmithfield 67

    6 February 2009 at 7:21 am

    Just been reading the interesting debate here. Personally, I am all for children making healthy eating choices. However, I think legislating this into schools is counterproductive.

    Firstly it ignores the psychology of children. Kids who get the message that junk food is banned will simply feel more tempted to go and try it out. If you’ve got kids, tell them they’re not allowed something and see the reaction.

    Secondly, there is a major logical problem at the base of this argument. It is a false dichotomy to divide food into “bad” and “good” foods. Where is the line to be drawn and on what basis?

    Thirdly, what about the physical exercise side of the equation. I notice over recent years that participation in sport by kids has been falling off dramatically. A lot of this seems due to teachers not volunteering to supervise sports teams due to the amount of bureaucracy our teachers have had to administer under the previous government.

    I am all for educating kids into the right way of eating. I saw the Jamie Oliver series on this very topic. Even educating was extremely difficult because of the patterns the kids were learning at home. I think, in the Jamie Oliver series, the schools provided healthy choices in their tuck shops. As kids got the healthy food message, they tended to more frequently choose the healthy options.

    This sort of approach is likely to be more effective in the long run as the kids become empowered to make positive choices for themselves rather than having the choices forced on them.
68. higherstandard 68

    6 February 2009 at 8:58 am

    Janet

    I was asked to stay on.
69. ak 69

    6 February 2009 at 9:21 am

    hs: I was asked to stay on.

    (let me guess: by your wife)
70. Felix 70

    6 February 2009 at 9:25 am

    From this thread I get the strong impression that there are two highly valued principles involved:

    1. It is the responsibility of parents to feed their children.

    2. The role of the school is to educate kids, not to dictate what they can/can’t eat.

    Surely then, the question is: Why are schools selling food at all?
71. Kerry 71

    6 February 2009 at 9:50 am

    What a disgrace!!!!

    Tolley is like her leader……no brains and shouldnt be within a hundred miles of any responsibility!

    Schools should not have the option as to what they can or cannot sell….they dont get the option as to what they teach do they?? NO!

    Typical tory brain fade…….
72. higherstandard 72

    6 February 2009 at 10:03 am

    ak

    No by the principal and the other board members.

    Felix…. because many parents/children are incapable or too lazy to prepare a lunch and take it to school.

    Kerry … Yes quite so all schools should have a manual which all trustees and teachers must apply to the letter on pain of death – God forbid they can decide the best way to manage things themselves.
73. Felix 73

    6 February 2009 at 10:14 am

    hs
    “because many parents/children are incapable or too lazy to prepare a lunch and take it to school.”

    Yes, but what happened to “parent responsibility”? I don’t think you can argue both sides of this – either the school has a role in feeding kids or it doesn’t.
74. Janet 74

    6 February 2009 at 10:24 am

    H/S
    Well I hope you are standing down in the next elections. There is enough time to encourage some other candidates to stand, and there are some good training options for new members.

    I think it is unfair that parents no longer at the school make decisions for the school for which there is no accountability to the current students and parents. Unless you stand at an election and plainly say – it is x number of years since I had children involved with the school so do you still want me considering there are other parents who could do the job? OK, you might have institutional memory, but things change, schools move on.

    I am guessing but you probably supported that last failed Tory policy of bulk funding.
75. CMR 75

    6 February 2009 at 10:45 am

    It is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that their children’s (NB THEIR children’s) nutritional requirements are met. A school (which schools as opposed to educates), cannot be expected or required to usurp this responsibility. End of debate as I see it.

    Returning to this site after a month or so it surprises me that the label “Tory” continues to be bandied about by so many contributors. Why? The Tory Party existed in the UK in the 19th century so why use the name in a local context in the 21st century? It is an out-dated label so it possibly sits sweetly in this blog of ongoing Clark/Cullen worshippers…a bus-load on the road to extinction. Happy motoring!
76. tsmithfield 76

    6 February 2009 at 11:31 am

    The problem with the legislation approach is that it deprives kids from making positive choices. If they don’t actually choose to eat healthy food at school then they will make poor choices after school.

    A better approach is to get kids making their own food. This approach has been used before. Kids tend to more readily eat food they have made themselves. Teach them about healthy eating. Get them making healthy food. Get them eating what they have made.
77. higherstandard 77

    6 February 2009 at 11:56 am

    Janet

    I am guessing but you probably supported that last failed Tory policy of bulk funding.

    ………and I am guessing you’re a hand wronging moron.

    and yes I would be delighted if more parents would put their hands up to be on school boards, fund raising committees etc, however from my experience of the several schools that my children have moved through and talking to my colleagues at work it tends to be a small group of the same parents who help out year after year with school fund raising, sports coaching and governance, much the same case in the sports clubs around NZ.
78. higherstandard 78

    6 February 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Felix

    I think we’re of the same mind on this issue, but let me say that I think you can argue both sides ..parents do have a responsibility, that shouldn’t negate the schools ability to offer the choice of food at school ….or seeking advice/picking up the pieces if the staff can see that things are not as they should be with the child/student.
79. ak 79

    6 February 2009 at 12:18 pm

    hs: and I am guessing you’re a hand wronging moron.

    Eh what? Accusing Janet of finger-abuse now hs? Pardon me for surmising that you and you alter-ego, “global worming” burt, are far more likely to be guilty of that particular practice… (facking tury wonkers…makes you sock…)
80. higherstandard 80

    6 February 2009 at 12:40 pm

    ak

    better a facking tury wonker than a sicilist tisser…….. bit siresly all the pidgin hilling piple inti clisses seems to bi rither privalent on the blogs and is IMO a load of complete derisive shite
81. mike 81

    6 February 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Thanks National, its the schools job to teach our kids and our job to feed them.
    There are lots of choices out there in the big bad world so the sooner they learn to cope with them the better.
82. r0b 82

    6 February 2009 at 6:17 pm

    As I stated previously I am on a school board we have rules regarding what kids are or aren’t allowed in their lunch boxes as we have rules about mobile phones, ipods etc etc we also only allow certain foods to be sold at school . we do not need a a regulatory sledgehammer that will achieve not one iota to change the obesity epidemic . which might better be described people being slothful, lazy gluttons.

    I’m puzzled HS – why do you bother with your regulations at school? You’re opposed to a regulatory sledgehammer, and yet you are using one? Regulations won’t make one iota of difference, and yet you have them?

    Just btw, I did my term on a school board too, where we booted out the junk food, because it was just so obviously the right thing to do. Ask almost any teacher.
83. Dean 83

    6 February 2009 at 7:09 pm

    “I’m puzzled HS – why do you bother with your regulations at school? You’re opposed to a regulatory sledgehammer, and yet you are using one? Regulations won’t make one iota of difference, and yet you have them?”

    r0b, if you’re unable or unwilling to see the difference between a government regulation and a school board regulation then I’m afraid it’s just a reflection on you more than anything you could possibly have to say on the subject.

    “Just btw, I did my term on a school board too, where we booted out the junk food, because it was just so obviously the right thing to do. Ask almost any teacher.”

    To hell with choice and responsibility or education regarding healthy eating, right r0b? Just ban it and the problem will go right away! After all, teachers agree!

    On a more serious note, why do you feel it was the obvious choice? Was it because almost a decade of government funded healthy eating education was carried out with no real impact? Don’t you think that suggests that central government have no clue as to how to run such an undertaking?
84. will 84

    6 February 2009 at 8:46 pm

    r0b you appear to be a complete moron why are you berating someone who’s doing a good job on a school board just because they disagree with compulsion by a government you seem to fawn over.
85. Felix 85

    6 February 2009 at 9:34 pm

    It’s convenient and fun to frame this as a debate about responsibility, rights and choice but lets not let ideology blind us to what it’s really about – feeding kids up on sugar, saturated fat, white flour and meat by-products because they like the taste.

    That’s what we’re actually talking about – the “right” to let kids “choose” to eat crap.

    This might come as a shock to some of you but we actually tell kids what to do all the time. We don’t allow kids to make their own decisions because (drumroll….) they’re feckin kids. They’re not responsible. They make stupid decisions, so adults have to make most of the decisions for them.

    There is an adult responsible for every child at all times. From 9 – 3 weekdays that adult is the school.

    Yes, it’s primarily the parents’ place to look after a child’s nutrition, but while they’re at school, on school property, during school hours, the school takes on most of the responsibilities of guardianship.

    During those hours the school certainly can – and should – dictate what kids can or can’t put in their bodies. Just like parents do the rest of the time.
86. SBlount 86

    6 February 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Felix,

    Can you provide a rational, scientific justification for banning sugar, fat, flour, and meat? As I believe all these things are healthy.

    Ie ate all of these things profusely while at school and had a below average BMI.

    I now have an above average BMI. This is a common pattern I believe (BMI increasing with age). Surely the risk of these foods is an issue for older people and therefore if they should be banned, it would be prudent to do this everywhere but schools.
87. Felix 87

    6 February 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Really? That’s your response? A diet of sugar, saturated fat, white flour and meat by-products is healthy?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

    Ok then. Smoking and drinking is good for you. It prevents you from getting herpes. I know this because I’ve been smoking and drinking for 30 years and I still don’t have herpes.

    Prove me wrong, scientifically and rationally please.

    But seriously, my whole point is that adults can make that choice. Kids can’t. We make it for them and we should make it a good choice from the start because we don’t actually want them to grow up and eat shit food all their lives.

    (Well maybe you do, but that’s because you own a fast food business.)
88. r0b 88

    7 February 2009 at 1:28 am

    Sorry kiddies (Dean, will), wasn’t talking to you. The question re HS’s completely contradictory and illogical position was addressed to HS.
89. Dean 89

    7 February 2009 at 4:45 am

    “Sorry kiddies (Dean, will), wasn’t talking to you. The question re HS’s completely contradictory and illogical position was addressed to HS.”

    You once again set the standard, r0b. Glad to see some things never change.
90. higherstandard 90

    7 February 2009 at 8:19 am

    r0b

    I think you answered your own question

    “Just btw, I did my term on a school board too, where we booted out the junk food, because it was just so obviously the right thing to do. Ask almost any teacher.’

    This is the place where the appropriate decision should be taken on an individual school basis rather than the sledge hammer approach of of central government as it allows latitude to run fund raisers and other programmes at a local school level without the school having to worry about things that are fairly irrelevant.

    Felix

    A diet of sugar, saturated fat, white flour and meat by-products is healthy?

    Certainly a diet containing this products is healthy as long as it’s supplemented with other foods and plenty of exercise – which is often the missing ingredient in many kids lives – for example I arranged for the local supermarket to provide free oranges and apples to the kids over a term in exchange for certain advertising rights would we do the same with MacDonalds or Coke ……no. But is a fund raiser where we sell fizzie drinks, sausages etc appropriate every now and again you bet.

    On a separate but related note the success of any school has far more to do with the principal/teachers and board/parents than it will ever have to do with central government and their many scurrying prats.
91. Felix 91

    7 February 2009 at 9:34 am

    hs I broadly agree. Of course the key word is “containing”.

    At the end of the day I expect school boards to make good decisions for their students. Official guidelines of some sort are probably a better tool than strict regulation for this sort of thing.
92. higherstandard 92

    7 February 2009 at 9:46 am

    Thanks Felix

    I think you’re quite right to expect and demand that school boards make good decisions for the students and I think that’s what the vast amount of them try to do.
93. Bill 93

    7 February 2009 at 10:22 am

    Scanned through the comments and have seen no mention of what I thought would be an obvious point

    Junk food tends to be manufactured by large companies operating with economies of scale. They seek profit and market share. Their products contain very cheap and crap ingredients, sell for less than a non-junk option but spin more profit.

    Poverty. Lunch money. ‘Options’. Join the dots.

    And. If kids prefer the taste of junk food…high sugar and salt plus a multitude of potent chemical flavourings, is that a reason to manufacture and sell such food, or is it maybe a reason to re-educate the palates of kids with good (ie tasty) healthy food?

    Given the health impacts I’d argue the latter. And how to do that without levelling the playing field somewhat through legislation?
94. r0b 94

    7 February 2009 at 6:33 pm

    r0b I think you answered your own question

    My position is consistent HS, I believe in regulation within schools, and also regulation by law (to compell schools that don’t do it for themselves), because I think regulation is effective and addresses a serious problem.

    You don’t believe in regulation unless you are the one doing it (in your own school). You don’t believe regulation will make “one iota” of difference unless you’re the one doing it (in your own school). It seems on the face of it like a good example of a typical right wing fallacy, they are always opposed to regulation unless they are the ones doing the regulating.
95. higherstandard 95

    7 February 2009 at 6:54 pm

    r0b

    Ha ha you seem to be the one that believes in regulation by central government as long as it is something you agree with……… I bored arguing this point anymore, suffice to say that I believe the current directive by the Minster is more sensible the previous one.
96. r0b 96

    7 February 2009 at 7:10 pm

    I bored arguing this point anymore

    Jolly good then.
97. higherstandard 97

    7 February 2009 at 7:24 pm

    Where have you been anyway ?
98. r0b 98

    8 February 2009 at 1:25 am

    Here and there through SE Asia. My head is not much in the NZ political space right now, and internet access is occasional, but I peek at The Standard from time to time.
99. higherstandard 99

    8 February 2009 at 8:42 am

    Hope you’re having fun.

Links to post

1. Ralston on Ryall at The Standard 2.02: posted on 12 February 2009 at 11:33 am
2. Nationals’ ambition for your kids: a pie and a fag at The Standard: posted on 4 March 2009 at 8:10 pm
3. Big Mac nation at The Standard: posted on 13 July 2009 at 12:03 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS