At this point is seems to be based on "I feel" rather than "I know".
The thing is they are doing it for the children's own good, and the evidence of it actually being for their own good is unclear.
At this point is seems to be based on "I feel" rather than "I know".
I get it. I'm still okay with it since I think that barring the schools trying to poison the kids, the schools have the right to serve or not serve what they want. Just as I have the option to send my kid with lunch or not.
The thing is they are doing it for the children's own good, and the evidence of it actually being for their own good is unclear.
At this point is seems to be based on "I feel" rather than "I know".
We do alot of things for children's "own good" with a lack of evidence to support it. Like requiring car seats for 2-6 year olds.
The thing is they are doing it for the children's own good, and the evidence of it actually being for their own good is unclear.
At this point is seems to be based on "I feel" rather than "I know".
We do alot of things for children's "own good" with a lack of evidence to support it. Like requiring car seats for 2-6 year olds.
I this case there is evidence suggesting that banning the chocolate milk could actually make children less healthy in the name of their health.
I this case there is evidence suggesting that banning the chocolate milk could actually make children less healthy in the name of their health.
Exactly. There's studies that suggest that there's an overall benefit to the supposedly 'bad' milk. If it gets kids to drink milk and that makes them healthier and does not contribute to obesity, it's a, uhh, healthier practice than serving only non-flavored milk. But people rarely think. Plus what we've got here are crusaders and crusaders don't need no damned evidence of anything. What they think is right even if it's wrong because, you see, they know better than you. Crusaders are like that. Smarter than the average infidel.
With a quick search, Québon adds 15 grammes of sugar per serving (1 cup or 250 ml) of chocolate milk. It is a lot of raffine sugar.
It is like putting sugar on brocoli and saying brocoli is healthy for you, but you need to make it unhealthy so kids will eat it.
It's more like showing that sugar broccoli isn't less healthy to eat that normal broccoli and showing that the kids refuse to eat the non-sugar broccoli which is worse than eating sugar broccoli. You need to weigh the outcomes of both to see which is actually the better option rather than assuming which is better.
Furthermore, again, you have a can of Coca Cola which has Zero nutritional value (beyond providing sugar for your diet) or a carton of chocolate milk.
Which one is more beneficial to drink.
If you do not recongnize that manifactured sugar is bad for your health, nothing I will say will change your mind. You are just a denialist.
That's a bare assed assertion backed with a personal attack, not an argument. I see no reason to take your word over scientific studies on this subject.
Now if kids only eat bad stuff, the problem is parents and ads targetting kids. At least schools will provide a healthy alternative.
Will they drink the plain milk?
Like all those studies receiving money from mysterious groups who say cigarettes are good for asthma or that climate change is a myth? The scientific community is not divided on the question. It just looks like it when news network invite one scientist saying it is bad and one saying it is good. It looks like the scientific community is divided 50/50, when it is not the case.
I would hope the schools do not sell soda pops.
No, more akin to 40+ years of research since we've been using refined sugars. The fact that every component on corn sryup is something you consume every day. Much of which is guess what? real sugar.
Do you know why most Americans are fatasses? It has nothing to do with corn syrup and sugar, and everything to do with overeating for the very little physical activity they perform. I work out more in one day, than many other Americans do in a week.
Let's just take a practical real world example. How fast can you run a mile? How much can you bench press? Squat? How far can you ride a mountain bike in a hilly area? Can you do any of this after a full days work where you spend your entire day on your feet?
Also, you still haven't answered the question. Which is better for you, chocolate milk (which is also fortified with extra vitamins and minerals you don't get in Normal Milk.) or a can of coke?
If you do not recongnize that manifactured sugar is bad for your health, nothing I will say will change your mind. You are just a denialist.
No one is saying that manufactured sugar is bad. We're saying that manufactured sugar + milk is healthier than no milk at all. Chocolate milk is not unhealthy. It's merely LESS healthy than normal milk, which many kids refuse to drink. Removing chocolate milk is a poor health move and will harm many kids.
If you do not recognize that manifactured sugar is bad for your health, nothing I will say will change your mind. You are just a denialist.
Now if kids only eat bad stuff, the problem is parents and ads targetting kids.
I had thought it was non-mainstream sources that were particularly concerned about refined sugar. It certainly is true that refined sugar has nothing left in it but the empty calories, but that makes it a sweetener without another flavor of its own. What it sweetens may still have nutritive value - and, thus, something sweetened with refined sugar could well be more nutritious than honey by itself; it depends on what you're sweetening.
But as far as what kids eat being due to parents and advertising, that is dreaming in Technicolor.
Food preferences are natural - and result from our having evolved under conditions where meat was expensive being difficult and dangerous to get. But it provided protein which is very important to growing bodies - children who grew up just eating rice or even turnip or cabbages, even healthy vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower and carrots, but no meat, would be stunted in their growth.
So we naturally prefer the kinds of foods that we had to be strongly motivated to obtain in ancient times. Our bodies still need and make use of important nutrients from vegetables, but our food preferences push us away from them because they were too easy to get.
So imagining that we could get every child to naturally prefer "healthy" food through propagandizing children at a sufficiently early age with enough consistency is wishful thinking - there is a real problem here.
Another problem is that if a child in infancy is fed something and then throws up afterwards, the brain is hardwired to turn that into a strong aversion to that kind of taste. So children have to be carefully watched so they don't put the wrong things into their mouths, and not fed too much vegetables at once, and so on.
Good nutrition is important, but we have to work with food preferences, not against them.
Kids need to eat more fries cooked in transfats. This way they will get more veggies in their diet.
I've been meaning to ask you. Is ignorance truly bliss?
You don't regularly see vegans like this...
Kids need to eat more fries cooked in transfats. This way they will get more veggies in their diet.
I've been meaning to ask you. Is ignorance truly bliss?
You sure seem to be happy.
THAT was a witty comeback!
The thing is they are doing it for the children's own good, and the evidence of it actually being for their own good is unclear.
At this point is seems to be based on "I feel" rather than "I know".
indeed.
But nobody can deny that there are some serious health issues (concerning overweigth) in the U.S. ...
Premise 1) Flavored milks are less healthy than non-flavored milk
I don't think anyone here disagrees with this point. If this were the only premise relevant to the drinking habits of school children, it would be proper (or at least undeniably acceptable) to stop serving flavored milks instead of the real thing. No one here is arguing that this is not so.
Premise 2) Children who drink milk are healthier on average than children who drink no milk.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with this point either, and on its own it does not in any way refute the logical conclusion of premise 1 alone. But, there's still a problem here. We are, with premise 1 and 2, looking at a framework where the only choice at the lunch counter is "Milk or Chocolate Milk?" And of course if you take out the "or chocolate milk" from that, you are left with "The kids drink milk" which satisfies the health concerns of both premise 1 and premise two. Where's the problem?
Premise 3) Children who currently drink flavored milk will not drink plain milk if the flavored option is taken away.
An abominable premise, in my opinion as a man who prefers milk to water as a matter of taste, but that does not mean it is not true. We have the figures, from the same article, that flavored milk sales account for 70% of milk sales in schools. This would suggest that it is not the milk that children are after, but the flavor. Denied their flavored milk, they will seek out what is best in their minds. While most schools have stopped selling actual sodas, most still have vending machines that will provide a variety of juice drinks, many of which have no nutritional value all the same. And, if the child cannot obtain a beverage that he or she desires, then he or she might as well slake his thirst at the water fountain, and option that while wholsome and in most cases potable fails the child's health on Premise 2 all the same if it is taken.
The result is, as most results are, muddy: certainly plain milk is "better for you" than chocolate milk, but any milk (plain or otherwise) is provably better than no milk at all. Some sources contend that the flavored milks are, in fact, not measurably detrimental to health when compared to regular milk.
So, if we are trying for the best, we must look at the net health impact of all options. The plain milk drinkers will, presumably, continue to drink plain milk as is their habit. For them there is no change. The non-milk drinkers will not suddenly start drinking milk now that there are fewer versions of it, and so for them there is no change as well.
The only group that would experience a change would be the current flavored-milk-drinkers. Presumably a certain portion of them would choose to drink ordinary milk, and a certain portion would cease drinking milk altogether. For those that switch to regular milk there is a theoretical benefit which may or may not be negligable. But, we will be generous, and call this a small plus. For those who drop milk from their diet there is a proven and significant health cost to this action -- a moderate to significant minus, if you will.
Utilitarianism teaches us that an action is right if the sum of the good that will come of it is greater than the sum of the ill that will come of it. While I do not feel that utilitarianism is a universally appplicable moral theory, it is rather adept at dealing with muddy choices where there is both benefit and loss to separate groups or subgroups, such as this case.
Small plusses and large minuses are what we are dealing with. Even if the percentage who gain the mild benefit of switching to milk is larger than those who incur the significant loss of dropping milk, the sum of the good and the ill that shall have come from this is still weighted problematically towards the ill. We have no reason to believe that the number of those who benefit shall be greater than the number of those who suffer, and some logical reasoning on why it might, in fact, be the other way around. Therefore, we can expect the sum of the ill that ceasing the service of flavored milks might do to excede, even perhaps vastly excege, the sum of its good. By utilitarian principles, then, this is not right action and should not be undertaken.
Of course, where I'm standing that whole wall 'o text I just wrote is kind of moot, as I agree with this.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. CS Lewis
Well... huge swaths of the population can't digest milk properly, primarily in Asia but also in North America. Speaking as a Euro-Canadian, it really is for the best that I don't drink milk, trust me. Many people who currently enjoy drinking milk actually shouldn't be drinking milk. One of my friends, for example, just recently discovered he was actually allergic to milk and it was causing him many other health complications. He was quite surprised.
Additionally, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong on this) that children go to school to learn. One of the things schools can teach is healthy lifestyle habits. Drinking sweet drinks all the time is not a healthy lifestyle habit. Don't you want children to learn to be happy and healthy at school, as well as all the standard skills of reading, writing, history, all that kind of stuff?
I live right now in Okinawa, and have two young children who go to Japanese daycare. Japan is nation that does not share the rest of Asia's lactose intolerance, and so our children do get milk with their meals at daycare. Milk is slightly sweet on its own, as I recall (been a long time since I drank it), but most of the other drinks kids get here are not all that sweet. They get green tea, water, barley tea, all kinds of stuff. They grow up to drink plenty of green tea (lots of benefits, not as many drawbacks as black tea) and not so much soda. People drink sweet drinks here, for sure. But not to the extent we do in North America. It's the longest-lived region in one of the longest-lived nations in the world.
Just sayin'.
They might also drink tap water.
Which means they don't get the benefit of milk. Kinda the point, man. If they don't drink milk because it isn't chocolate, they've removed something from their diet. Something they need.
What are you talking about? Vegans raise perfectly healthy kids whose growth isn't stunt.
To do that those vegans need to find alternate forms of protein - you know, what we eat meat for. It's not like cutting out meat magically makes us healthier. In fact, it makes us sick. Well, protein is the issue but that's one of our most common sources of the stuff. Anyhoo, the point here is that vegans don't raise perfectly healthy kids who's growth isn't stunted without protein. Nobody does. And if you have to supplement something, it means your diet isn't including enough of it. And that, of course, means your diet isn't as healthy as it could be.
_______________________
When I was in school, milk was for noobs. Most kids, if they drank it, drank the chocolate stuff. I can vaguely remember maybe two kids that drank the normal stuff. The cool kids? Yeah, we drank Chilly Willy orange drink. Werd.
Drinking sweet drinks all the time is not a healthy lifestyle habit.
Hey now, just what you sayin', punk? You sayin' that my 4 Dr. Pepper-a-day habit is unhealthy? Is that what yous be sayin', punk? Don't you be knowin' who I be mate? Huh?
Hey now, just what you sayin', punk? You sayin' that my 4 Dr. Pepper-a-day habit is unhealthy? Is that what yous be sayin', punk? Don't you be knowin' who I be mate? Huh?
Four DrP's a day? And you're still a twig? Damn, man. I do not envy you the day when your metabolism finally slows. And it will.
Drinking sweet drinks all the time is not a healthy lifestyle habit.
Hey now, just what you sayin', punk? You sayin' that my 4 Dr. Pepper-a-day habit is unhealthy? Is that what yous be sayin', punk? Don't you be knowin' who I be mate? Huh?
Any drink that inludes Dr. in its name is very healthy.
Four DrP's a day? And you're still a twig? Damn, man. I do not envy you the day when your metabolism finally slows. And it will.
Well, four on days where I pay attention. If I don't I'll go through a half dozen. I try to mix it up with water and fruit juice (mostly fruit juice) but yeah. Most days I'll drink at least four cans of Dr. Pepper.
I still prefer Coca Cola personally to everything else save for Barq's Rootbeer.
Well, four on days where I pay attention. If I don't I'll go through a half dozen. I try to mix it up with water and fruit juice (mostly fruit juice) but yeah. Most days I'll drink at least four cans of Dr. Pepper.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's a lot. I used to drink a can of soda a day. I'm down to zero now. I still have it occasionally - when nothing else is easily available (er, aside from water. can't eat with water for some reason). It's actually silly of me to stop right now cuz I am trying to gain weight by lifting and I need calories but whatever. I mean, the stuff can strip rust off of chrome. I probably shouldn't be ingesting that with the way my guts are. ;)
Just buy some eagle one wadding cloth and be done with it if you want to remove rust off of chrome.
Eventually everyone will be bringing their own lunches, and the state will be saving a lot of money.
The Food and Drug Adminstration is actually behind all of it, they want to give kids fake foods, so that they can save all the real food, and this creates profits, while they eat and drink synthetic factory made foods, that are cheap and unhealthy.
The truth is, I drinked choclate milk everyday when I was in highschool, and I am still extremely healthy, they are only trying to remove it from the menu of schools to save the state money. If you are a born fat assed kid, you do not need any sugar in your diet anyways, but that is no reason to take away choclate milk from everyone else.
Normal food is healthier than all the manufactured, non-fat, trans-fat foods that schools put out because of all the yelling about how the food is unheathly. The food that you think is healthy is actually not healthy. This is one of those lose-lose situations, where it just gets worse for the kids.
I just don't wanna remove any intestinal lining. I already have a condition that kinda does that on occasion for me.
You, um, do realize it goes through a giant vat full of acid before ever getting to your intenstins, right? I would not recommend an ennama with soda, but drinking it should not acidify your intestins in any way.
You, um, do realize it goes through a giant vat full of acid before ever getting to your intenstins, right? I would not recommend an ennama with soda, but drinking it should not acidify your intestins in any way.
Well duh. But that's not unreasonable to the point of silliness, is it?
DP isn't as sweet as Pepsi (no where close).
I still prefer Coca Cola personally to everything else save for Barq's Rootbeer.
Soft drinks are actually different o'er the pond (and in this part of the EU different from the rest); Cola is very sweet while Pepsi tastes a bit less sweet actually. Though it might be packaging messing with the brain
What are you talking about? Vegans raise perfectly healthy kids whose growth isn't stunt.
Tell that to my vegan aunt. She didn't eat the protiens or get the amino acids she needed during her pregnancy and my cousin was born with serious birth defects. Bow legged, mental retardation, one hand never grew so she just has a stump, her other hand only has 3 fingers, and she's legally blind.
It's possible to do it as a vegan, but it's certainly not easy and it's probably going to require at least some food supplements or a very weird diet.
Honestly this sounds like severe neglience on your aunt's side. She should've figured this out before she got pregnant to prepare for it.