yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I don't understand what some gossip rag snarking about how some celebrity looks in a bikini has to do with school lunchrooms serving nutritious meals instead of sodas, candy, and other snacks with little to offer beyond trans fats, corn syrup and salt...? They're not talking about required classes in How To Avoid Getting Fat At All Costs. This is about schools offering genuinely nourishing foods that actually give children some vitamins and minerals, not ultra-low-calorie or crash diet regimens. People with eating disorders aren't driven by fear of "junk foods"--they're driven by fear of calories, period, no matter how nourishing the sources they come from. As a parent, I can't find any sense in insinuations that we're putting our kids at grave risk of developing eating disorders because we focus our meals on whole grains, lean meats, and lots of fruits and vegetables, with chips, pastries, and ice cream only as occasional treats--we do that because we care about their health and their developing habits to help preserve it for a lifetime, not because we give a damn how they're going to look in bathing suits someday. And that is the focus of the proposed legislation in question as well. Lunch is just one meal--it's not going to hurt them if they don't have many opportunities for special treats at that time.
If there's a case for how school cafeterias offering curly fries and Otis Spunkmeyer cookies daily lowers children's risk of developing eating disorders, I'd sure like to hear it. It's not that those conditions aren't cause for serious concern, but just as there are major limits to what schools can realistically do about reducing the incidence of obesity, there are also major limits to what they can do about reducing the incidence of eating disorders. I think if you're looking to what's offered in the school cafeteria as either a promoter or discourager of eating disorders, you're probably looking in the wrong place. It won't dramatically affect rising obesity rates either, but at least for kids who are already getting too much junk food at home it can be one less place to consume it, and for kids whose parents are already offering healthy food at home, it can be one less opportunity to slide into less healthy habits elsewhere.
If there's a case for how school cafeterias offering curly fries and Otis Spunkmeyer cookies daily lowers children's risk of developing eating disorders, I'd sure like to hear it. It's not that those conditions aren't cause for serious concern, but just as there are major limits to what schools can realistically do about reducing the incidence of obesity, there are also major limits to what they can do about reducing the incidence of eating disorders. I think if you're looking to what's offered in the school cafeteria as either a promoter or discourager of eating disorders, you're probably looking in the wrong place. It won't dramatically affect rising obesity rates either, but at least for kids who are already getting too much junk food at home it can be one less place to consume it, and for kids whose parents are already offering healthy food at home, it can be one less opportunity to slide into less healthy habits elsewhere.
Last edited: