Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 One of the biggest problems with this is the money that the vending machines bring in. This causes problems at the local and national level. When I met with Ted Kennedy's staff about this, their primary reason for pessimissm about it was this: right now the budget sucks, and the President and his party would basically rather these free-lunch kids eat their own socks than some food, and there's simply no room to increase the budget at all. So it comes down to this question: do you a)feed the kids high-quality food that is more expensive, and feed only who you can or do you b)feed *all* of the kids, even if it isn't the best food, to avoid letting some of the kids go hungry. There's no easy answer to this. Getting rid of soda machines, replacing the crap- " food " with fresh fruits vegetables, and animal products from local farms simply costs money, and it costs money that simply isn't there. What do you say to that except " yeah, that sucks. " ? From that point I emphasized the possibility of replacing soda with bottled water and milks and such things, which some schools have been able to do without losing money. Or at least to support more such pilot program to study the possibility. Anyway, it is not necessarily more efficient at the federal level. The federal level is in a lockjam. You are not going to get anything that replaces anything cheap in schools with anything more expensive in schools with the current majority or President. I'm not a registered Democrat and I don't usually vote Democrat so this is not a partisan statement-- it's just a simple fact that the Republicans are a major obstacle. Sure, a minority of them want corps out of schools to, and that's great, but their party at large is not willing to put up the money. At the local level you face the same problems with money, but you also have more local influence on local taxes. You have less people to convince that the money is needed. You can network with local farms to start getting their food in the school. You can make the issue more *relevant* to people by showing how the local town or regional economy will directly benefit from getting these local farms' products in the schools. You can get the pilot programs in *your* school *now* rather than convincing some federal bureacrats to put pilot programs in random anonymous schools. I do think we should work at the federal level but I do not see it as more promising than the local level. The federal level is largely a dead-end compared to what can be accomplished locally. Moreover, if we are for local production and knowing our suppliers personally and small-scale everything, our movement should reflect that. Trying to build a movement for a grass-roots small-scale economies by pressuring the federal government is like trying to get Marxian " communism " out of an enormous dictatorship. Lenin " tried " that; it didn't work. I'm all for lobbying at the federal level, mostly because the other guys, the evil ones, do it too, but it really is a side-issue. We need a grassroots movement that builds the mutual trust and partnership we want to see our future based on, *while* it is trying to attain that future. Chris In a message dated 5/18/03 11:56:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@... writes: > yes this is true but it is extremely inefficient. To get anything big > accomplished, like removing veding machines from all schools, you really > need both grass roots efforts and government help. Otherwise every PTA and > every parents group in every school must tackle the issue. If we had as few > > grass roots groups fighting the issue to get the governemtn to ban vending > machines in publicly funded schools then it would be done. You can even > have a clause put in that if the parents really want the vending machines > left in that it could be done by petition or somehting like that. Also > that would free up other parents groups to fight any of the other issues > that parents must address with their children, schools, regulations etc. > Besides who is the government but us? We pay for it, we own it, we should > act like that is the case and control it. The government is exactly that, a > > tool for a community to accomplish things that are difficult or impossible > to be done on an individual level. > " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 , While I don't see Theresa's scenario as a likely result of banning the sale or marketing of HO to minors, it's a valid concern that I think we should take into account. While there is no doubt child abuse, no one abuses children more than these governmental agencies breaking up families. I've known people who have been DYS and DSS custody and they don't shive a git about children, they are arrogant management-oriented people that put these kids in what amount to psychological concentration camps. I saw on tv a couple months ago a lawyer for a woman who was abused by her husband, got separated from him, and then got her child taken away for LETTING HER CHILD WITNESS VIOLENCE IN HER HOME!!!! The basic unit of society is the family. I know this can sound like some right-wing Bircher crap but letting a vast bureacracy replace parenting and families is one more concession to the aspiring world dictatorship. It is simply completely and thoroughly incompatible for us to advocate on the one hand a more personalized economy, local production, small farms, etc, and on the other hand displace the fundamental unit of such economies-- families-- with some vast impersonal bureacracy. Child abuse in unacceptable, but the governemnt is the last entity capable of resolving the problem. Notice that the concentration of corporate power is directly parallel to the concentration of federal power. The Senate gained its prestige following the Civil War, whereas the House had been more prestigious prior too. The era of gov't regulation into the 20th century brought the rise of dairy conglomerates and factory farms. The rise of this disingenuous governmental concern with child abuse has directly paralleled the loss of millions of small farms, and the concentration of econcomic power both in the US and the hegemony of Western (mostly US) economic power all over the world. That said, I think a much more likely result of banning sale of HOs to children would be replacement of HOs with coconut oil or lard or something, because it would such a hassle for these companies to use HOs. Chris In a message dated 5/18/03 1:18:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > Oh my god no! You're so right! Maybe someday parents feeding poison to > their kids will be considered child abuse and treated as such! What we > really need to do, then, is to legalize child abuse! So let's start a > grass-roots movement to legitimize forcing broken glass down children's > throats to create a precedent. > > >Let's say that a ban on the sale of HO's to minors became legislation. Is > it > >then hard to fathom the next step? Could a parent who gives their child a > >cookie containing HO's in their own home be sued by the child or concerned > >relative? Second-hand smoke litigation would indicate this scenario is > very > >likely. We are not just headed for a slippery slope, we are in a full on > >slide! " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Irene, I suppose the definition of government is also up for debate. Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 yes this is true but it is extremely inefficient. To get anything big accomplished, like removing veding machines from all schools, you really need both grass roots efforts and government help. Otherwise every PTA and every parents group in every school must tackle the issue. If we had as few grass roots groups fighting the issue to get the governemtn to ban vending machines in publicly funded schools then it would be done. You can even have a clause put in that if the parents really want the vending machines left in that it could be done by petition or somehting like that. Also that would free up other parents groups to fight any of the other issues that parents must address with their children, schools, regulations etc. Besides who is the government but us? We pay for it, we own it, we should act like that is the case and control it. The government is exactly that, a tool for a community to accomplish things that are difficult or impossible to be done on an individual level. At 11:58 PM 5/17/03, you wrote: >But this can be done at the grass roots >level without involving the higher levels of government. Aren't issues like >this exactly what the PTA is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 In a message dated 5/18/2003 10:18:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > Oh my god no! You're so right! Maybe someday parents feeding poison to > their kids will be considered child abuse and treated as such! What we > really need to do, then, is to legalize child abuse! So let's start a > grass-roots movement to legitimize forcing broken glass down children's > throats to create a precedent. > > , I think you were right the first time. We obviously don't have enough common ground to debate this issue. I am not copping out, I just think we have " extreme " ly different ideas on what life is about. Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Irene, We do basically agree. Because like I said, the folks who want the opposite have full access to the fed gov't all the time, so we need to crowd them out to the point we can. But I wouldn't say we " own " the gov't. The gov't was designed to prevent that in 1787, and has done a more less good job with it. Chris In a message dated 5/18/03 2:44:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@... writes: > Actually I think we basically agree. I am not saying that I don't think we > shoudl work on the local level. I also agree that this administration is > basically a disaster. I was just trying to counter the " government as evil > monster " theme and the " we are helpless against the government " stuff. I > won't disagree that really horrible legislation has been enacted via > government however I still think that we should not lose sight that we > still own the government unless we willing give that up. It is about taking > > responsibility for something that is ours. We can have a much greater > effect than we give ourselves credit for. Most movements have the greatest > effect if they work both top down and bottom up. There have been many > useful legislations passed from grass roots movements such as 40 hour work > week. Minimum wage laws (inadequate as they are) etc. We have a tendency to > > forget such improvements rather quickly though. " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 In a message dated 5/18/2003 11:12:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ChrisMasterjohn@... writes: > > One of the biggest problems with this is the money that the vending > machines > bring in. This causes problems at the local and national level. When I > met > with Ted Kennedy's staff about this, their primary reason for pessimissm > about it was this: right now the budget sucks, and the President and his > party would basically rather these free-lunch kids eat their own socks than > > some food, and there's simply no room to increase the budget at all. So it > > comes down to this question: do you a)feed the kids high-quality food that > > is more expensive, and feed only who you can or do you b)feed *all* of the > > kids, even if it isn't the best food, to avoid letting some of the kids go > hungry. > I am not that old, only 35, but I do remember bringing bagged lunches to shool. In fact, that was before we had fancy thermos containers to be able to bring hot food. A difficult situation does not mean impossible. Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Irene, In my opinion, issues like the one we are discussing, are better dealt with at the local level. I would rather my federal government worry about protecting us from terrorists, rather than protecting us from what we choose to put in our mouths. I don't disagree with a ban on vending machines. Let us all make it our job to work on that. Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 In a message dated 5/18/03 3:27:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > > Furthermore, this is a bit of a tangent. I'm assuming you're not opposed > to the illegality of feeding a child broken glass, right? Or of breaking a > > child's arm in the course of a beating? Or of raping a child? Or of > feeding a child rat poison? > , the difference is that when we achive the political power to ban HOs we will still not have achived a scientific understanding of why an oreo is worse than a homemade cookie made with butter. So a parent who feeds a child broken glass is obviously harming the child intentionally-- which is abuse. A parent who feeds a child in oreo in all liklihood does not realize the health effects of the HOs. And because the gov't says they are there is not justification to *believe* the gov't, absent a true understanding of the science, or else we'd all be in trouble feeding people butter and beef. > > I really think you've gone a bit off the deep end, Chris. Nobody here, > least of all me, is advocating that government replace parents and > families. If you can explain how that's actually in process, please do, > but you'll also have to explain how having laws against child abuse and > removing toxins from the food supply is even remotely connected, because it > > just isn't. > IF Theresa's scenario were to work out (and, like I said, I don't think it will), then I think that would be the case-- a parent feeding a child an oreo is bad, but it does not justify ripping apart the family. I don't think that would happen, but you seemed to say that if it did happen it would be fine. > So who or what would you have responsible for doing something about child > abuse? The police are part of the government. Should they not respond to > reports of child abuse? Are they the last people capable of rescuing a > child handcuffed to a radiator? Should government butt out when a man is > molesting his son? > , you are right, and I think I may have miscommunicated. No doubt there are times when the gov't *should* intervene in child abuse-- i.e. in true abuse. But there is no doubt in my mind that the gov't intervenes too often right now, and if some of the folks in these agencies had their way the gov't would start to replace parents. Giving them an extra reason to take kids away is not a bright idea, IMO. > Where's the connection? And remember, children used to be considered the > property of their parents, so parents could do any damn thing they wanted > to their children without repercussion or fear of consequences. Beating > was acceptable. Solitary confinement and starvation punishment were > acceptable. Do you really want to go back to that? Do you really want to > equate family rights with abuse? I agree with you, and obviously made my point in the wrong way. No, kids shouldn't be considered the property of their parents and should have some rights, but it is a slippery issue b/c the more the gov't gets involved it effectively infringes on the sovereignty of the family in favor of the *governemtn* instead of, or as well as, the child. So no doubt gov't intervention is necessary, but it has to be limited to clear and intentional abuse-- and feeding oreos simply is not that. HOs can be deadly over the long term, but that doesn't equate them with broken glass-- *especially* since none of the parents feeding them understand why they are as deadly. Chris " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Irene, I have one 3 1/2 year old son. So I am not part of the public school system right now. But I do take him to pre-school a few times per week and they presently give the children junk for the morning snack (pretzels, popcorn, pasteurized milk, sugary treats, etc.). The teachers know I have an interest in healthy nutrition, but as of yet I have not made it a confrontational issue. After having this debate, (and perhaps 's comments have had some positive effect), I plan to bring as much literature on HO's as I can to the staff. Putting the bug in Kai's teachers minds and not allowing him to be given their morning snack might cause them to consider HO's more seriously. I will also come up with some ideas as replacement snacks such as limiting the morning snack to a variety of dried or fresh fruit and yogurt, cheese, or milk. Granted, I know this will have to be pasteurized dairy, but this is better than HO's. To be honest, I do not have much experience in bucking the system as my choice has usually been to get out of the system if I don't like how it's being run. But I can see that this will likely have to be revised somewhat. I know I am not offering much detail yet, but I will certainly be thinking of ways to prevent my own son from consuming things that aren't healthy for him and also ideas to revise the system in general. I promise to keep you posted on the progress or lack thereof. Theresa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Besides, , What exactly is the benefit of banning a sale of HOs to minors instead of outright banning them? I don't see any benefit, and the added harm means tearing families apart over cookies. It is an absolutely terrifyingly awful solution, when the obvious better alternative is outright banning the use of HOs in food products. No HOs, and no torn-apart families. France did it, why can't we? And since Nabisco knows much better the harms of HOs than most parents do, if anyone is abusing children it's them. So stop *them* from doing it. Anyway, the whole idea would be a joke anyway. I never had *any* problem getting cigarettes when I was 13. I'm sure 18+ -year olds would be even more likely to buy oreos for minors than cigarettes!!! Chris " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Theresa- Oh my god no! You're so right! Maybe someday parents feeding poison to their kids will be considered child abuse and treated as such! What we really need to do, then, is to legalize child abuse! So let's start a grass-roots movement to legitimize forcing broken glass down children's throats to create a precedent. >Let's say that a ban on the sale of HO's to minors became legislation. Is it >then hard to fathom the next step? Could a parent who gives their child a >cookie containing HO's in their own home be sued by the child or concerned >relative? Second-hand smoke litigation would indicate this scenario is very >likely. We are not just headed for a slippery slope, we are in a full on >slide! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 On Sun, 18 May 2003 09:00:34 -0700, Irene Musiol <irene@...> wrote: > Besides who is the government but us? We pay for it, we own it, we should > act like that is the case and control it. The government is exactly that, > a tool for a community to accomplish things that are difficult or > impossible to be done on an individual level. I really wish what you say were true, but has it has ever worked out that way in all of history? I tend to remember the acronym, GGG (Government Grows Greater). Perhaps that is all government can do efficiently. The Constitutionally-adopted " War on Alcohol " (a/k/a " Prohibition " ) brought us nationalized crime and much more alcohol. Nixon's " War on Cancer " apparently has been very good for cancer. The presidential-edict settin up the " War on Drugs " rapidly brought drugs to just about every neighborhood in the land. Bush's much bally-hooed " War on Terror " now has me and almost every decent American in its sights. I wonder where a government-directed " War on Oreos " will go? I kind of liked when Meryl Streep got up on a soapbox and blasted government-approved Alar which was used on fruit for children. Alar went in the trash when growers, fearful of homemaker wrath, stopped buying it. Aren't there better ways of getting children off junk-food than crying for the government monster to " protect us " ? Regards, Rex Harrill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 It is not about " crying for government to protect us " . It is about realizing that goverment is intended to be our tool and using it as such. I mean at a local level if you need a streetlight on a street corner what do you do? I suppose you could petition your neighbors and have bake sales to raise the money but it is more efficient to call your mayor or council member and have them take care of it. That is what local taxes and local government is for. Well the same goes for federal government. It is just that since the federal government is so large most people feel helpless to have an effect but they really can. It just takes longer and is more work. Also big companies can have an easier time of effecting government because they have more money and resources so as citizens we have to be more persistant if we want to counter that. But I spent 15 years working for the federal government and I can say that even at my peon level we felt " the will of the people " when it was expressed. And I am also not advocating a " war on oreos " but there is no reason we can't effect a ban on vending machines in all schools that receive federal funds. Irene At 10:48 AM 5/18/03, you wrote: >On Sun, 18 May 2003 09:00:34 -0700, Irene Musiol <irene@...> wrote: > > > Besides who is the government but us? We pay for it, we own it, we should > > act like that is the case and control it. The government is exactly that, > > a tool for a community to accomplish things that are difficult or > > impossible to be done on an individual level. > >I really wish what you say were true, but has it has ever worked out that >way in all of history? I tend to remember the acronym, GGG (Government >Grows Greater). Perhaps that is all government can do efficiently. > >The Constitutionally-adopted " War on Alcohol " (a/k/a " Prohibition " ) brought >us nationalized crime and much more alcohol. Nixon's " War on Cancer " >apparently has been very good for cancer. The presidential-edict settin up >the " War on Drugs " rapidly brought drugs to just about every neighborhood >in the land. Bush's much bally-hooed " War on Terror " now has me and almost >every decent American in its sights. I wonder where a government-directed > " War on Oreos " will go? > >I kind of liked when Meryl Streep got up on a soapbox and blasted >government-approved Alar which was used on fruit for children. Alar went >in the trash when growers, fearful of homemaker wrath, stopped buying it. > >Aren't there better ways of getting children off junk-food than crying for >the government monster to " protect us " ? > >Regards, >Rex Harrill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Actually I think we basically agree. I am not saying that I don't think we shoudl work on the local level. I also agree that this administration is basically a disaster. I was just trying to counter the " government as evil monster " theme and the " we are helpless against the government " stuff. I won't disagree that really horrible legislation has been enacted via government however I still think that we should not lose sight that we still own the government unless we willing give that up. It is about taking responsibility for something that is ours. We can have a much greater effect than we give ourselves credit for. Most movements have the greatest effect if they work both top down and bottom up. There have been many useful legislations passed from grass roots movements such as 40 hour work week. Minimum wage laws (inadequate as they are) etc. We have a tendency to forget such improvements rather quickly though. Irene At 11:10 AM 5/18/03, you wrote: >One of the biggest problems with this is the money that the vending machines >bring in. This causes problems at the local and national level. When I met >with Ted Kennedy's staff about this, their primary reason for pessimissm >about it was this: right now the budget sucks, and the President and his >party would basically rather these free-lunch kids eat their own socks than >some food, and there's simply no room to increase the budget at all. So it >comes down to this question: do you a)feed the kids high-quality food that >is more expensive, and feed only who you can or do you b)feed *all* of the >kids, even if it isn't the best food, to avoid letting some of the kids go >hungry. > >There's no easy answer to this. Getting rid of soda machines, replacing the >crap- " food " with fresh fruits vegetables, and animal products from local >farms simply costs money, and it costs money that simply isn't there. What >do you say to that except " yeah, that sucks. " ? From that point I emphasized >the possibility of replacing soda with bottled water and milks and such >things, which some schools have been able to do without losing money. Or at >least to support more such pilot program to study the possibility. > >Anyway, it is not necessarily more efficient at the federal level. The >federal level is in a lockjam. You are not going to get anything that >replaces anything cheap in schools with anything more expensive in schools >with the current majority or President. I'm not a registered Democrat and I >don't usually vote Democrat so this is not a partisan statement-- it's just a >simple fact that the Republicans are a major obstacle. Sure, a minority of >them want corps out of schools to, and that's great, but their party at large >is not willing to put up the money. > >At the local level you face the same problems with money, but you also have >more local influence on local taxes. You have less people to convince that >the money is needed. You can network with local farms to start getting their >food in the school. You can make the issue more *relevant* to people by >showing how the local town or regional economy will directly benefit from >getting these local farms' products in the schools. You can get the pilot >programs in *your* school *now* rather than convincing some federal >bureacrats to put pilot programs in random anonymous schools. > >I do think we should work at the federal level but I do not see it as more >promising than the local level. The federal level is largely a dead-end >compared to what can be accomplished locally. > >Moreover, if we are for local production and knowing our suppliers personally >and small-scale everything, our movement should reflect that. Trying to >build a movement for a grass-roots small-scale economies by pressuring the >federal government is like trying to get Marxian " communism " out of an >enormous dictatorship. Lenin " tried " that; it didn't work. > >I'm all for lobbying at the federal level, mostly because the other guys, the >evil ones, do it too, but it really is a side-issue. We need a grassroots >movement that builds the mutual trust and partnership we want to see our >future based on, *while* it is trying to attain that future. > >Chris > > >In a message dated 5/18/03 11:56:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@... >writes: > > > yes this is true but it is extremely inefficient. To get anything big > > accomplished, like removing veding machines from all schools, you really > > need both grass roots efforts and government help. Otherwise every PTA and > > every parents group in every school must tackle the issue. If we had as > few > > > > grass roots groups fighting the issue to get the governemtn to ban vending > > machines in publicly funded schools then it would be done. You can even > > have a clause put in that if the parents really want the vending machines > > left in that it could be done by petition or somehting like that. Also > > that would free up other parents groups to fight any of the other issues > > that parents must address with their children, schools, regulations etc. > > Besides who is the government but us? We pay for it, we own it, we should > > act like that is the case and control it. The government is exactly > that, a > > > > tool for a community to accomplish things that are difficult or impossible > > to be done on an individual level. > > > > > " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are >to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and >servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore >Roosevelt > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Chris- >or marketing of HO to minors, it's a valid concern that I think we should >take into account. Could you explain what that valid concern is, exactly? I think we're all in agreement that HO is a poisonous non-food substance that has no place in our food supply, right? Some of us feel the market should take care of the problem, others want to ban lots more than just HO, but on that one point I think we're all in agreement. So looking at other poisonous non-food substances and how they're handled should be instructive. Would any of us be in favor of allowing sawdust to be added to food? Or how about motor oil? Or warfarin? If not, why should HO be any different? And if anyone would argue in favor of allowing anyone to put anything in food without any regulation at all -- and I know libertarians who would and do make exactly that argument -- don't you consider it a flat-out lie to call a non-food a food, and on that basis alone shouldn't HO be banned from food? Remember, we're not talking about banning sugar or mandating a healthy diet or anything else like that, just banning the inclusion of a specific poisonous non-food substance in products called food and labeled as being fit for human consumption. And as far as second-hand smoke goes, if we stipulate that smoke is harmful (and I know many people would disagree, but for the sake of argument let's not bother with their disagreements) then how exactly is exposing someone to your smoke not a tortious act? The only defense -- and it is a good one -- is twofold: second-hand smoke used to be socially acceptable, and the dangers of smoke and second-hand smoke were not previously known, at least not widely. So obviously it makes sense to seek to prevent future exposure to second-hand smoke rather than retroactively turn second-hand smoke into a crime or a tort except in very specific kinds of circumstances in which there was systematic exposure by parties which did in fact know better. (The flight attendants' lawsuit may or may not fit that bill.) I think designated smoking areas make a lot of sense. They give smokers a place to smoke, and they give non-smokers the freedom to avoid smoke. If people can smoke anywhere and everywhere, it's impossible for people who want or need to avoid smoke to do so. Just as a personal example, I have severe asthma. Exposure to second-hand smoke gives me asthma attacks and can potentially be life-threatening. In the past, people have argued that that's my problem, and smokers shouldn't be penalized because some minute fraction of the population might have a bad reaction to their smoke. And if we assumed that smoke isn't harmful except to some tiny fraction of the populace, I'd agree -- the burden of avoiding smoke would be on asthmatics. But asthma is in fact skyrocketing, so even if we didn't know that cigarette smoke is very harmful, there are now enough people with asthma that smokers don't any longer run a minute risk of injuring or even killing an asthmatic, they're actually almost certain to over time. (This increasing incidence of asthma is doubtless due to two things, pollution and diet, so maybe we can eventually roll back the clock and reduce the incidence of asthma by increasing the consumption of saturated fat and cutting the consumption of sugar and PUFA -- and yes, HO -- but that's a separate issue.) >While there is no doubt child abuse, no one abuses children more than these >governmental agencies breaking up families. I don't know how to say this diplomatically, so I'm just going to say it: you're dead wrong. (OK, I could actually have said it LESS diplomatically. <g>) I'm not arguing that governmental agencies don't effectively abuse children. We need major, major reform of those agencies, no question. But the basic assumption behind opposing government intervention in cases of child abuse is actually that the government has no right to interfere because children are property of their parents, and this is deeply, deeply wrong. Furthermore, this is a bit of a tangent. I'm assuming you're not opposed to the illegality of feeding a child broken glass, right? Or of breaking a child's arm in the course of a beating? Or of raping a child? Or of feeding a child rat poison? Assuming we're in agreement that HO is a very poisonous non-food substance, why shouldn't its status ultimately be the same? Obviously it's not the same kind of crime _today_, because of lot of this effective abuse is completely inadvertent. The medical establishment used to even promote HO as healthy, and still does, at least to some extent. This needs to be stopped. But think about it: if HO is eventually banned from food, how is a parent going to even get hold of any in the first place? >The basic unit of society is the family. I know this can sound like some >right-wing Bircher crap but letting a vast bureacracy replace parenting >and families is one more concession to the aspiring world dictatorship. I really think you've gone a bit off the deep end, Chris. Nobody here, least of all me, is advocating that government replace parents and families. If you can explain how that's actually in process, please do, but you'll also have to explain how having laws against child abuse and removing toxins from the food supply is even remotely connected, because it just isn't. >Child abuse in unacceptable, but the governemnt is the last entity capable of >resolving the problem. So who or what would you have responsible for doing something about child abuse? The police are part of the government. Should they not respond to reports of child abuse? Are they the last people capable of rescuing a child handcuffed to a radiator? Should government butt out when a man is molesting his son? >The rise of this disingenuous governmental >concern with child abuse has directly paralleled the loss of millions of >small farms, Where's the connection? And remember, children used to be considered the property of their parents, so parents could do any damn thing they wanted to their children without repercussion or fear of consequences. Beating was acceptable. Solitary confinement and starvation punishment were acceptable. Do you really want to go back to that? Do you really want to equate family rights with abuse? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Ok, just curious, how do you propose doing this. And I am not sure we can compel anyone to make it their job to do anything. Nor am I likely to try. Irene At 01:30 PM 5/18/03, you wrote: >I don't disagree with a ban on vending machines. Let us >all make it our job to work on that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Chris- >What exactly is the benefit of banning a sale of HOs to minors instead of >outright banning them? I don't see any benefit, and the added harm means >tearing families apart over cookies. There is none. As I've said, I'd much prefer HO banned outright from ALL foods for everyone. It's not something like alcohol, which responsible adults can handle without problem and which, at least in certain forms and certain quantities might actually be beneficial, it's just a poison, period. >And since Nabisco knows much better the harms of HOs than most parents do, if >anyone is abusing children it's them. So stop *them* from doing it. Yes, exactly. Banning HO would be best, but stopping them from selling HO to minors might at least work as a step in the right direction. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 I would certainly be interested in your progress. My son is 12 months old. I will be facing the same issues in a year or so. This discussion has compelled me to write my congress person about the issue of vending machines in schools. I know that my letter alone won't make an iota of difference but it is a start. I know vending machines are big money makers for schools but quite frankly if we can afford $2billion dollars a month (or was it a week) to bomb Iraq, and now how many billions to rebuild, then I think we can adequately fund our schools. I am sure she will respond. She always does. I will be interested in what she has to say. I will be without email for a while. Irene At 01:58 PM 5/18/03, you wrote: >Irene, > >I have one 3 1/2 year old son. So I am not part of the public school system >right now. But I do take him to pre-school a few times per week and they >presently give the children junk for the morning snack (pretzels, popcorn, >pasteurized milk, sugary treats, etc.). The teachers know I have an interest >in healthy nutrition, but as of yet I have not made it a confrontational >issue. After having this debate, (and perhaps 's comments have had some >positive effect), I plan to bring as much literature on HO's as I can to the >staff. Putting the bug in Kai's teachers minds and not allowing him to be >given their morning snack might cause them to consider HO's more seriously. I >will also come up with some ideas as replacement snacks such as limiting the >morning snack to a variety of dried or fresh fruit and yogurt, cheese, or >milk. Granted, I know this will have to be pasteurized dairy, but this is >better than HO's. > >To be honest, I do not have much experience in bucking the system as my >choice has usually been to get out of the system if I don't like how it's >being run. But I can see that this will likely have to be revised somewhat. > >I know I am not offering much detail yet, but I will certainly be thinking of >ways to prevent my own son from consuming things that aren't healthy for him >and also ideas to revise the system in general. I promise to keep you posted >on the progress or lack thereof. > >Theresa > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 >>>>>Ok, just curious, how do you propose doing this. And I am not sure we can compel anyone to make it their job to do anything. Nor am I likely to try. Irene --->it's already being done in a town neighboring mine, as well as others across the country: http://20below.mainetoday.com/press/pph/030302obese.shtml Sunday, March 2, 2003 Obesity fight in schools takes aim at soda, candy AUGUSTA - For Harold, a junior at Freeport High School, supporting a bill to ban the sale of candy and soda in school vending machines is a no-brainer. " It's not right for schools to endorse unhealthy foods, " she says. But Nick Giobbi, a senior at Deering High School in Portland, thinks the effort to help obese teenagers by restricting access to fattening foods is " a good cause " that's destined to fail. It won't work, he says, because students have " plenty of opportunities to buy candy (and soda) outside of school. " The debate between the two high school students is more than a scholarly exchange. It is playing out for real on a much larger stage: The Maine Legislature is considering a bill this year to fight obesity by cracking down on candy and soda sales in schools. National trade associations that track food-related legislation say Maine is one of about 20 states considering similar legislation as lawmakers try to promote fitness and nutrition in schools. of the American School Food Service Association said recent developments have given childhood obesity a high profile in state capitols around the country. It began with a 2001 report in which then-Surgeon General Satcher said obesity " may soon cause as much preventable disease and death as cigarette smoking. " Last year, the school board in Los Angeles banned all soft drinks from the district's 677 schools, effective in January 2004. The issue has been big news here in Maine as well. Last year, the state Bureau of Health toned down a $1.3 million anti-obesity campaign that urged Mainers to drink less soda. The original message triggered complaints from the soft drink industry that the ads overstated and misrepresented the health risks of the products. The new message suggested that soft drinks are not unhealthy, in moderation. No one disputes that obesity is a serious problem. Over half of Maine's adults are overweight and Maine has the highest percentage of obese adults in New England, according to a 2001 study by the state and the Harvard Prevention Research Center Project. One fifth of all Mainers are more than 30 pounds overweight. It is against that backdrop that Rep. Faircloth, D-Bangor, has filed An Act to Help Public Schools Promote Public Health and Address Childhood Obesity. The Legislature's Education Committee held a hearing on the bill recently but the panel has yet to vote on the proposal, amid signs that some lawmakers believe the legislation goes too far. The bill as drafted would prohibit the sale in all schools of any food or beverage that has a high sugar or sweetener content, as well as any juice that is less than 100 percent " real fruit juice " and any food that has more than eight grams of fat per serving. State and federal laws already restrict the sale in schools of low-nutrition foods and beverages during the school day, but Faircloth's bill would set new standards and extend the ban around the clock. The sale of all soft drinks would be prohibited in elementary schools and middle schools. Soft drinks could be sold in high schools, but only if they are free of caffeine and sugar. The bill would allow schools to honor existing contracts with suppliers for the prohibited foods and beverages. " Whatever your definition is for good nutrition, candy and soda don't meet that definition, " Faircloth said of the bill, one of several he has filed to promote healthier lifestyles. Although Faircloth said his favorite meal is a double cheeseburger, fries and a coke, he said schools should be " one island where children have an opportunity to mature and achieve sound bodies and sound minds. " Instead, he said, public schools " promote messages that contradict the most important health messages. " Supporters outnumbered opponents at the public hearing, but the proposal is proving to be a hard sell. Rep. Glenn Cummings, D-Portland, who co-chairs the Education Committee, said opponents have the votes to kill the bill in the Legislature. So Faircloth may have to choose between watering down the bill to make it more palatable or resigning himself to defeat. Although the committee has yet to vote on the bill, Faircloth is now proposing an amendment that would limit its impact to vending machines and school stores. A separate bill supported by Faircloth calls for a nutritional study of food sales in other school venues, such as sales by booster clubs. Many public health organizations support the bill, including the American Diabetes Association, the Maine chapter of the American Heart Association, the Maine chapter of the American Lung Association and the Maine Dental Association. Opponents include the National Confectioners Association, the National Food Processors Association and a paid consultant to the Maine Soft Drink Association. Critics argue that the keys to fighting obesity are exercise and a balanced diet, not " demonizing " foods that are perfectly safe in moderation. They also argue that local school districts should be free to deal with the issue as they see fit, without being saddled with yet another state mandate. The proposed ban " is not going to work, " said Carol Meerschaert of New Gloucester, incoming president of the Maine Dietetic Association and a consultant to the Maine Soft Drink Association. Schools that have banned soda sales, she said, have not seen a reduction in the number of overweight students. Instead of picking on candy and soda, said Lodge of the National Confectioners Association, the state should " put more of an emphasis on nutrition education " and physical activity. He said Illinois is the only state in the country that requires daily physical education in its schools. Some school districts are not waiting for the Legislature. SAD 75, which serves the towns of Topsham, Bowdoin, Bowdoinham and Harpswell, is already taking steps to encourage students to cut back on their soda intake. Booth, the district's school health coordinator, said the district is trying a new " price differential " at Mt. Ararat High School this year in which soda costs $1 but juice and milk cost 75 cents and bottled water just 50 cents. Booth said the idea behind the pricing scheme is that it's better " to teach our students to make choices in a world where there are many choices " than to ban soda sales. She said it's too soon to tell how well the initiative is working, but she said studies in other parts of the country have shown it to be effective. Students in the district's elementary schools and middle school don't have access during the school day to vending machines selling soda, Booth said. But she said the elementary schools are trying to combat another unhealthy tradition - found in schools all around the country - of rewarding students with candy and cookies. Teachers are being encouraged to award other prizes, such as an extra 10 minutes of personal reading time. " They're trying to get out of the mindset of using food as a motivator, " she said. In Freeport, the school board recently adopted a policy that promotes " healthy nutritional choices in school vending machines. " It says school vending machines located in areas frequented by students can sell only foods that provide nutritional value, as defined by government standards. " We are getting rid of our soft drinks, " said Tom , the principal at Freeport High School. " We should promote good nutritional practices. We do have too much obesity. " said potato chips and crackers have been replaced by more nutritious snacks, and the school now sells only nutritional drinks in its beverage machines. The one exception is Gatorade, which will continue to be sold in one machine until the school's contract for that product expires. " I think it should be left up to the local school systems, " said Nason, a junior at Freeport High School. She said she supports a ban because students get plenty of soda elsewhere without having easy access at school. But she said " each school should have the right to choose whether they want to have soda. " But just as the policy makers in Augusta are divided, so are the students themselves. Dan Hackett, a senior at Deering High School, supports Faircloth's efforts. " I think they should pass it, " he said of Faircloth's bill, and " see what, if any, effect it has " on obesity among students. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 In a message dated 5/18/03 9:41:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > I'll grant that we don't have a complete scientific understanding of all > the ways in which HO is harmful, but we certainly know enough: the way it > replaces normal fats in cell membranes and disrupts cellular transport and > functioning, the way it replaces normal fats in the production and > utilization of hormones and thus disrupts the organism's hormonal balance, > etc. > That wasn't my point. You and I understand them; ask any given parent to draw a fatty acid chain and see what you get. > (We also have an understanding of why an Oreo made at home with proper > flours and butter and a less-bad sugar like Rapadura would be better in > other ways, but once you get rid of the HO, you're down to comparing food > quality, and that's a separate issue.) > You and I understand it, but... > Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that feeding a child Oreos TODAY should be > considered abusive, but someday it should. (That is, if Nabisco doesn't > get rid of the HO.) > When? What is your standard of when parents " should know " ? When the government agrees with us? The same gov't that gives us the food pyramid now? The only justification for avoiding HOs is because you understand the science behind it (or you intuitively trust a cow over a chemist). If we use gov't guidelines as a criteria, than all of the folks on this list who are parents are child abusers by our own standards. Thus, a parent can't be considered a child abuser for feeding HOs unless they understand the science behind it... and I kind of doubt that will every happen. And there's no reason every parent should have to be an amateur nutritionist to survive, stay healthy, let alone keep their family together. > There's actually a perfect analogy in history. Doctors used to handle > cadavers and then perform surgery, deliver babies, etc. Nobody knew the > doctors were actually inadvertently killing their patients until Semmelweis > > discovered the truth. Is he the guy that got locked up for excessive masturbation? LOL Before Semmelweis, it would obviously be unfair to > hold doctors responsible, because nobody knew. (I'm assuming they really > didn't know.) After Semmelweis, there was a transition period of > information propagation and knowledge revision, and eventually it came to > be considered malpractice to neglect proper sanitation. > Sure but these are *doctors*. They go to *medical school*. Is there a " parenting school " that is going to teach parents about hydrogenated oils? > We're now in that transition period when it comes to HO -- and as with > Semmelweiss' discovery of the importance of hand-washing, the people who > want to keep doing things the old way are fighting hard to stop change. I > can't predict who will win, but I'm sure you can guess which side I'm on. < > g> > Well, I'm on your side in terms of HOs, but not ripping families apart. Either ban them outright, or don't ban them. I think anything that allows someone's family to be torn apart over a cookie is crazy. > There's not really any way for Theresa's scenario to play out, because if > it came to the point that feeding children HO were universally enough > acknowledged to be severely harmful that such feeding could result in a > government intervention, nobody would be selling foods with HO, least of > all kiddie-oriented foods like Oreos. > I agree completely. > How could the government replace parents? The system is oriented towards > placing children in foster homes when the kids' parents aren't acceptable, > not towards pushing everyone into state-run indoctrination camps. I'm sure > > there are many cases in which the government has intervened when it > shouldn't, but first, no matter how good the system there are going to be > glitches and mistakes and rough edges, so you can't expect perfection no > matter what, and second, there are many, many cases in which the government > > should have intervened but didn't because nobody knew something was going > on or nobody cared. > I didn't mean in the sense that the gov't would be doing the parenting, but that gov't would displace the sovereignty and coherency of the boundaries of the families. > This whole issue of taking kids away from parents who feed them Oreos is > really a straw man, anyway. It's just not how the system would work. That's what I think too, but I was responding to your saying it woudl be fine if it did happen. Now, > sure, if today a man forces his kid to eat sawdust, the government > might > take the kid away, and probably rightly so. Maybe in twenty or thirty > years there'll be no HO in food and it'll be rightly considered a non-food > poison, so if someone cooked up a bunch of HO in his basement workshop and > then forced it down his son's throat there might be repercussions. But if > we ban HO from food, that would be a freak occurrence. > Well, in *that* case it'd be fine to take the kid away!!! That's different than an oreo though :-P > >but it is a slippery issue b/c the more the gov't gets involved it > >effectively infringes on the sovereignty of the family in favor of the > >*governemtn* instead of, or as well as, the child. > > Doesn't this depend entirely on the quality of the government and the > criteria used to determine whether or not to intervene? There's no a > priori reason that greater government invention (say, an increase from just > > intervening in cases of serious physical harm to also covering cases of > solitary confinement and forced hunger) automatically means the > intervention is in favor of the government instead of the children. If the > > government were to take children away from parents teaching their kids that > > there should be no government, then maybe you'd have a point. > I think there is a value to limited gov't in and of itself that I believe fosters greater mutual independence grassroots socio-politico-economic relations, and that sometimes the need for gov't intervention outweighs these benefits (as in cases of true outright abuse) but that in the absence of a clear need for intervention it is best to have less gov't. If you don't believe that, we just disagree. Any intervention that violates the sovereignty of the family is an expanse of governmetal intrusiveness. Sometimes sovereignty has to be broken, as in the sovereignty of the individual when the individual is acting maliciously and harming others, or in the family in cases of abuse, but it must be protected and respected vigilantly when the government gets on its high horse about manageing parenting and every other part of our lives. > >but it has to be limited to clear and intentional > >abuse-- and feeding oreos simply is not that. > > Again, this whole issue is a straw man, a miscommunication, a mistake, an > error, and really irrelevant. > Allright then. Guess we're done :-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 In a message dated 5/18/03 11:15:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > We don't require parents to have a scientific understanding of how and why > many other things they're not supposed to do are bad -- like feeding kids > sawdust -- but parents still aren't supposed to let their kids do > them. Why should HO be different? The only difference now is that it's > already well-known that eating sawdust is bad, but we're in the middle of > the transition from thinking HO is good to thinking HO is bad. Eventually, > > if the right side wins, it'll be universally known that HO is extremely > bad. > Because sawdust is self-evident. An oreo looks like an oreo whether made with HOs or lard. Sawdust does not look, taste, smell, or do anything else like food. > >When? What is your standard of when parents " should know " ? When the > >government agrees with us? The same gov't that gives us the food pyramid > >now? > > Well, this is why a ban now would be a much more productive > development. It's scientifically justifiable. In fact, that guy shouldn't > > have been suing Nabisco to set an imperfect precedent, he should've sued > the FDA to force it to review HO -- and remove it from the food supply. > Good point. > And you're also stuck on this scientific understanding thing. Scientific > understanding is not necessary. It's only necessary to know that something > > is wrong. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't be a lot better off if science > education were better and more universal in this country!) > But you can't know it's wrong in the case of HOs unless you understand the science. Otherwise, crisco looks more or less like lard. Every other kind of child abuse is self-evident. You don't need to know about hemoglobin to know when you smack your kid and he bleeds its bad. But you DO need to understand how trans-fats work in the body to know they're bad. > >Sure but these are *doctors*. They go to *medical school*. Is there a > > " parenting school " that is going to teach parents about hydrogenated oils? > > Come on, basic standards of responsibility require basic > knowledge. The knowledge of the dangers of HO are just beginning to be > widely disseminated, but think of all the many things parents know to > prevent their children from eating or playing with. Bleach, lye, lead, rat > > poison, paint, you name it. There's no " parenting school " required, just a > > reasonable level of common knowledge. The dangers of HO aren't there yet, > but we need to put them there. > Yeah, but those things share no characteristics with HO. They burn when they touch you, immediate harm is seen. Oreos look like food, taste like food (sort of :-P) and don't have any immediate effect. A parent can't judge that they are bad without understanding why. Unless they just listen to the gov't. And that obviously cannot be our criteria considering the gov'ts position on food vis-a-vis ours. > I agree that the partial ban was highly flawed, but I don't think it > would've led to families being ripped apart. If the ban had actually gone > through, Nabisco would've had to change its formula in order to avoid the > bad publicity. And if that didn't force their hand, the first family > actually ripped apart over Oreos would've caused sweeping change in the > entire industry -- and that first family would be the last family. > Right... we've agreed on that several times. Well, can you give some examples of what you consider systemic problems > with the position of the boundary? I'm not talking about isolated > problems, particular wrong decisions, but actual bad standards. > It's way past my bed time. Mayb eI can answer this better tomorrow. I don't think the gov't break up families over what kind of cookie to eat. It would cause enormous pain and suffering over something that is important but is NOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS IMPORTANT as the love and care that that parent affords their child, and cannot be replaced by a foster family no matter what kind of cookies the child eats in the foster home. Again, the poitn is moot becaus eneither of us think that would happne. But as a hypothetical... > Well, just remember that I wasn't saying it would be fine today, just > eventually -- and in that eventuality, there'd be no HO in Oreos anyway. > Oh, I know, and I still disagree with it. > >Well, in *that* case it'd be fine to take the kid away!!! That's different > >than an oreo though :-P > > Well, consider an alternate twenty-years-in-the-future scenario, in which > most foods no longer contain HO because of the ban on selling them to > children. Say the ban has been written to resemble our alcohol laws -- no > serving HO to a minor. Obviously it doesn't pay to make one Oreo for kids > and another for adults, so most products are HO-free, but there are a few > holdouts. > Kind of a bad analogy, since parents can give kids alcohol on their own property. > Do you think it's reasonable to consider taking a kid away from his parents > if those parents serve the kids booze all the time? Not really. Maybe if the kid's getting *drunk* and it's " all the time. " But I don't think if the kid is habitually served alcohol in very small amounts or is once in a great while getting drunk, *especially* if he/she's a teenager, then no, that's why out of line for the gov't to take the kid away. Well, imagine a future > in which all the dangers of HO are widely known, but one couple insists on > feeding its kid lots and lots of HO, and this kid develops all kinds of > hormonal imbalances and other health problems which are characteristic of > high HO consumption but are now virtually unknown in the overall kid > population because of the HO ban. Like all the widely understood harms of butter and eggs and all those babies with high choleterol problems? Do you really think it would be so > unreasonable for the government to try to get the parents to stop by > threatening to take the kid away? Remember, in this scenario it's all but > universally known that HO is a toxic non-food substance, and that foods > made with HO are tantamount to foods made with rat poison. > Kind of like the toxic beef fat that used to be in Mc's fries? I don't think it is a good precedent for the gov't to be able to take kids away based on these foods because their position is volatile and usually idiotic. Just because we're *right*... what if the pendulum were to change back? And how do you define " widely known " ? If it is that widely known, they would be banned at that point and so it is an implasible scenario. If they are widely recongized to be tantamount to motor oil as a food source, then yes, it is clear and clear child abuse, but at that point, they wouldn't be allowed in foods period. As for things that are legal and not sold to minors... do you think parents should have their kids taken away if they give them cigarettes? It's a highly questionable parenting decision, but to say the kid should be taken away is rather revolting in my view. > And if you think this is unreasonable, what do you think of the recent case > in which the vegan couple's baby was taken away because it was failing to > thrive, grow, develop, anything? Don't you think extreme nutritional > malfeasance like that -- even when it's the result of good intentions and > ignorance -- is grounds for intervention? I'm not saying a kid should be > taken away because his parents feed him one Oreo. But that one Oreo isn't > the whole story. There's a whole continuum of possibilities. > Dunno... so far have mixed feeling on the case but know practically nothing about it. Would have to learn more. If it could be scientifically demonstrated in a court of law that diet was the problem, then a court order should be given to modify the diet. If the court order is broken, then more intervention might be necessary, but he surely shouldn't be taken away without prior court order for diet change. > >I think there is a value to limited gov't in and of itself that I believe > >fosters greater mutual independence grassroots socio-politico-economic > >relations, > > I disagree. Our current big government came about in large part as an > organized response to the unopposed power of massively concentrated > corporate interests. Or perhaps I should say our previous big government, > because we're headed into another Gilded Age of corporate power and wealth > concentration. > Well , in the early 19th century *New England*, people had real democracy. They payed upwards of 90% of taxes to *town* governments. There were no big corporations running everything. There were some, but for scattered products like white flour, whereas all the other flours were gotten from the back yard and ground at the grist mill. There was small production, people knew who grew their food, people directly participated in economic affairs, had direct connections with the consequences of the economy, its " causualties " often living in peoples houses decided democratically how to distribute them. People mostly ate good food, with a crap load of sugar. People ate organ meats, plenty of fat, mostly grass-fed stuff. They got tooth decay from sugar and digestive problems because they used vinegar as a preservative instead of lacto-fermented foods, but they were a hell of a lot better off than we are. I think it is highly debatable whether big gov't was response to big business or came together with it. It is controversial and good poitns can be made either way and is way off the scope of this list. However, the only thing this country every had that was like real democracy was pre-20th century New England. Other areas had company towns and whatnot, but how corporate power played into things was part geography but largely state constitution, municipal charter, and local culture. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Chris- >the difference is that when we achive the political power to ban HOs we >will still not have achived a scientific understanding of why an oreo is >worse than a homemade cookie made with butter. I'll grant that we don't have a complete scientific understanding of all the ways in which HO is harmful, but we certainly know enough: the way it replaces normal fats in cell membranes and disrupts cellular transport and functioning, the way it replaces normal fats in the production and utilization of hormones and thus disrupts the organism's hormonal balance, etc. (We also have an understanding of why an Oreo made at home with proper flours and butter and a less-bad sugar like Rapadura would be better in other ways, but once you get rid of the HO, you're down to comparing food quality, and that's a separate issue.) >So a parent who feeds a child >broken glass is obviously harming the child intentionally-- which is abuse. Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that feeding a child Oreos TODAY should be considered abusive, but someday it should. (That is, if Nabisco doesn't get rid of the HO.) There's actually a perfect analogy in history. Doctors used to handle cadavers and then perform surgery, deliver babies, etc. Nobody knew the doctors were actually inadvertently killing their patients until Semmelweis discovered the truth. Before Semmelweis, it would obviously be unfair to hold doctors responsible, because nobody knew. (I'm assuming they really didn't know.) After Semmelweis, there was a transition period of information propagation and knowledge revision, and eventually it came to be considered malpractice to neglect proper sanitation. We're now in that transition period when it comes to HO -- and as with Semmelweiss' discovery of the importance of hand-washing, the people who want to keep doing things the old way are fighting hard to stop change. I can't predict who will win, but I'm sure you can guess which side I'm on. <g> >IF Theresa's scenario were to work out (and, like I said, I don't think it >will), then I think that would be the case-- a parent feeding a child an oreo >is bad, but it does not justify ripping apart the family. There's not really any way for Theresa's scenario to play out, because if it came to the point that feeding children HO were universally enough acknowledged to be severely harmful that such feeding could result in a government intervention, nobody would be selling foods with HO, least of all kiddie-oriented foods like Oreos. >But there is no doubt in my mind that the gov't intervenes too often >right now, and if some of the folks in these agencies had their way the gov't >would start to replace parents. Giving them an extra reason to take kids >away is not a bright idea, IMO. How could the government replace parents? The system is oriented towards placing children in foster homes when the kids' parents aren't acceptable, not towards pushing everyone into state-run indoctrination camps. I'm sure there are many cases in which the government has intervened when it shouldn't, but first, no matter how good the system there are going to be glitches and mistakes and rough edges, so you can't expect perfection no matter what, and second, there are many, many cases in which the government should have intervened but didn't because nobody knew something was going on or nobody cared. This whole issue of taking kids away from parents who feed them Oreos is really a straw man, anyway. It's just not how the system would work. Now, sure, if today a man forces his kid to eat sawdust, the government might take the kid away, and probably rightly so. Maybe in twenty or thirty years there'll be no HO in food and it'll be rightly considered a non-food poison, so if someone cooked up a bunch of HO in his basement workshop and then forced it down his son's throat there might be repercussions. But if we ban HO from food, that would be a freak occurrence. >but it is a slippery issue b/c the more the gov't gets involved it >effectively infringes on the sovereignty of the family in favor of the >*governemtn* instead of, or as well as, the child. Doesn't this depend entirely on the quality of the government and the criteria used to determine whether or not to intervene? There's no a priori reason that greater government invention (say, an increase from just intervening in cases of serious physical harm to also covering cases of solitary confinement and forced hunger) automatically means the intervention is in favor of the government instead of the children. If the government were to take children away from parents teaching their kids that there should be no government, then maybe you'd have a point. >but it has to be limited to clear and intentional >abuse-- and feeding oreos simply is not that. Again, this whole issue is a straw man, a miscommunication, a mistake, an error, and really irrelevant. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Chris- >That wasn't my point. You and I understand them; ask any given parent to >draw a fatty acid chain and see what you get. We don't require parents to have a scientific understanding of how and why many other things they're not supposed to do are bad -- like feeding kids sawdust -- but parents still aren't supposed to let their kids do them. Why should HO be different? The only difference now is that it's already well-known that eating sawdust is bad, but we're in the middle of the transition from thinking HO is good to thinking HO is bad. Eventually, if the right side wins, it'll be universally known that HO is extremely bad. >When? What is your standard of when parents " should know " ? When the >government agrees with us? The same gov't that gives us the food pyramid >now? Well, this is why a ban now would be a much more productive development. It's scientifically justifiable. In fact, that guy shouldn't have been suing Nabisco to set an imperfect precedent, he should've sued the FDA to force it to review HO -- and remove it from the food supply. >Thus, a parent can't be considered a >child abuser for feeding HOs unless they understand the science behind it... >and I kind of doubt that will every happen. You're stuck on this abuse thing. Obviously it's not child abuse TODAY to feed a kid some Oreos. (Though I would say that at least some of those morbidly obese little kids out there are effectively being abused.) And you're also stuck on this scientific understanding thing. Scientific understanding is not necessary. It's only necessary to know that something is wrong. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't be a lot better off if science education were better and more universal in this country!) >And there's no reason every >parent should have to be an amateur nutritionist to survive, stay healthy, >let alone keep their family together. Of course not. That's why banning HO NOW would be best. Then nobody would have to have a doctorate in biology or nutrition to know not to feed a kid a tub of HO. >Sure but these are *doctors*. They go to *medical school*. Is there a > " parenting school " that is going to teach parents about hydrogenated oils? Come on, basic standards of responsibility require basic knowledge. The knowledge of the dangers of HO are just beginning to be widely disseminated, but think of all the many things parents know to prevent their children from eating or playing with. Bleach, lye, lead, rat poison, paint, you name it. There's no " parenting school " required, just a reasonable level of common knowledge. The dangers of HO aren't there yet, but we need to put them there. >Either ban them outright, or don't ban them. I think anything that allows >someone's family to be torn apart over a cookie is crazy. I agree that the partial ban was highly flawed, but I don't think it would've led to families being ripped apart. If the ban had actually gone through, Nabisco would've had to change its formula in order to avoid the bad publicity. And if that didn't force their hand, the first family actually ripped apart over Oreos would've caused sweeping change in the entire industry -- and that first family would be the last family. >I didn't mean in the sense that the gov't would be doing the parenting, but >that gov't would displace the sovereignty and coherency of the boundaries of >the families. Well, can you give some examples of what you consider systemic problems with the position of the boundary? I'm not talking about isolated problems, particular wrong decisions, but actual bad standards. >but I was responding to your saying it woudl be fine >if it did happen. Well, just remember that I wasn't saying it would be fine today, just eventually -- and in that eventuality, there'd be no HO in Oreos anyway. >Well, in *that* case it'd be fine to take the kid away!!! That's different >than an oreo though :-P Well, consider an alternate twenty-years-in-the-future scenario, in which most foods no longer contain HO because of the ban on selling them to children. Say the ban has been written to resemble our alcohol laws -- no serving HO to a minor. Obviously it doesn't pay to make one Oreo for kids and another for adults, so most products are HO-free, but there are a few holdouts. Do you think it's reasonable to consider taking a kid away from his parents if those parents serve the kids booze all the time? Well, imagine a future in which all the dangers of HO are widely known, but one couple insists on feeding its kid lots and lots of HO, and this kid develops all kinds of hormonal imbalances and other health problems which are characteristic of high HO consumption but are now virtually unknown in the overall kid population because of the HO ban. Do you really think it would be so unreasonable for the government to try to get the parents to stop by threatening to take the kid away? Remember, in this scenario it's all but universally known that HO is a toxic non-food substance, and that foods made with HO are tantamount to foods made with rat poison. And if you think this is unreasonable, what do you think of the recent case in which the vegan couple's baby was taken away because it was failing to thrive, grow, develop, anything? Don't you think extreme nutritional malfeasance like that -- even when it's the result of good intentions and ignorance -- is grounds for intervention? I'm not saying a kid should be taken away because his parents feed him one Oreo. But that one Oreo isn't the whole story. There's a whole continuum of possibilities. >I think there is a value to limited gov't in and of itself that I believe >fosters greater mutual independence grassroots socio-politico-economic >relations, I disagree. Our current big government came about in large part as an organized response to the unopposed power of massively concentrated corporate interests. Or perhaps I should say our previous big government, because we're headed into another Gilded Age of corporate power and wealth concentration. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 In a message dated 5/19/03 2:39:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Idol@... writes: > And BTW, if a kid went off and ate a wild mushroom and got sick, he > wouldn't be taken away from his parents on the basis of that one event > alone. The parent would be told to stop the kid from eating wild > mushrooms, and if the parent didn't supervise the kid -- or worse, > encouraged the kid to keep eating wild mushrooms -- then further steps > might be taken. The same would be true of HO in some hypothetical future > scenario. > The mushroom analogy still isn't a perfect analogy because no child or adult could have a similar response to the HO in an oreo. Still, I think it is more reasonable for a court to order the parents to stop using HOs, but it is a totally implausible scenario, because if HOs are recognized as dangerous enough to have court orders about them, they simply wouldn't be allowed in food. To add complexities to this, we've agreed that sugar *shouldn't* be banned. What about immoderate use of sugar? What does more harm, sugary junk food with every meal and a couple sugary snacks, or occasional use of HOs, maybe once a week? I recognize that most kids who eat HOs eat them and sugar much more often than once a week. But the possibilities for complexities make any possible law to vague. What constitutes safe levels of HOs? In addition to mushrooms, we could use the example of tap water, which is often full of lead and other metals, sometimes aresenic or whatever, usually (*hopefully*) at very low levels that would never do immediate harm but probably contribute to harm over a life time. No parent would ever be taken to court for letting their children drink tap water. But a parent would certainly be taken to court for feeding the child lead. Since feeding an oreo is not a deliberate use of HOs but is a perceived act of feeding, and another entity is responsible for the presence of HO, this is somewhat comparable, as the use of tap water is not a deliberate use of lead but a use of *water* and some other industrial activitiy or whatever other causes is polluting the water. What constitutes abuse by this standard is very, very vague, since it is unclear what an acceptable level of this particular poison is (even lead has " acceptable " levels), and it is certainly unclear why very low-level exposure would be worse than high-level exposure to legal toxins like sugar. We've talked about the differences between the two already. And I believe that they explain why sugar should not be banned and HOs should be banned. But as long as HOs are allowed in the food supply, then a parent could reasonably weigh the relative effects of the two products in terms of moderation and immoderation as to what constitutes an unhealthy diet. > In addition to my mushroom analogy, so what if crisco physically appears > like lard? We have labeling laws, and the cannister of crisco will say > " partially hydrogenated something-or-other " , which increasingly should be a > > huge red flag to everyone in the country. > No kidding, but if it looks like food (kind of) tastes (kind of ) like food, and is ALLOWED TO BE SOLD as food, it's pretty safe to assume it's food!!! (Or it *should* be anyway) > >But you DO need to > >understand how trans-fats work in the body to know they're bad. > > No, you don't. You don't need to know how a poisonous mushroom works in > the body to know it can make you sick, you can just see that poisonous > mushrooms have made people sick. Same with HO. > Sure, but I've never seen anyone or heard of anyone getting violently ill from eating an oreo. > >Unless they just listen to the > >gov't. And that obviously cannot be our criteria considering the gov'ts > >position on food vis-a-vis ours. > > How about doctors and medical researchers? The government is no more the > root of all evil than it's the source of all good, Didn't say it was... and industry and > medicine have been up to their eyeballs in promoting all this bad > science. When there's a news report on ABC about the dangers of > pick-your-food, is that the government at work? Probably not. Maybe, but > probably not. There are many sources of medical information people listen > to, and yes, many of them are interconnected, and yes, many of the have > given lots of bad advice, but it's a fact nonetheless that people get their > > information from these sources. > So what? What criteria, then, do we use to define the point where HOs are defined as toxic? There are already doctor's and medical researchers opposed to trans fats. There has to be some clearly defined criteria, and the gov't statement is best I can think of. So anyway, there are plenty of medicla researchers that think butter is evil. > Is it legal, though? I think it's not actually legal, and if they give the > kid enough to make the kid sick, they're going to be in deep s***. > No, I think you're wrong. It's either legal everywhere or it depends on the state. It's legal in MA anway, afaik. > >Not really. Maybe if the kid's getting *drunk* and it's " all the time. " > But > >I don't think if the kid is habitually served alcohol in very small > amounts > >or is once in a great while getting drunk, *especially* if he/she's a > >teenager, then no, that's why out of line for the gov't to take the kid > away. > > OK, good point, I shouldn't have included small amounts of wine at meals in > > my example. I certainly wouldn't support an intervention then! But how > about lots of scotch? > Depends on the age of the kid, how much scotch, how drunk or sick the kid got/gets. Yes, it is certainly conceivable for me to see getting a kid drunk in certain circumstances as abuse, but it is an iffy line to try to draw. Have to see it on a case-by-case. > Always a danger, and I'm certainly much less interested in some kind of > theoretical family intervention than I am in the hard reality of banning > HO, which would vastly improve tens or hundreds of millions of lives in > this country alone without tearing apart a single family (except those in > which some members passionately believe in the ban and some are > passionately opposed... <g>). > Right. > So you'd allow the kid to be permanently stunted to a dramatic degree, if > not killed, rather than break up the family? I understand your reluctance > to condone intervention, but at some point I think you have to look at the > reality of the choice: leave the baby to die or grow up subhuman, or save > the baby. I don't think that's meaningfully different from the choice > between leaving a kid to be sexually abused or taking the kid away, except > that the sexual abuse involves intentional harm. But as far as the gravity > > of the results for the kid, they're on similar levels. > I didn't see the case... if he was going to die or become a vegetable, then of course he should be taken away. I didn't know what " failure to thrive " meant in this particular example. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.