It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NWO in Schools - Saying what we can eat!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:02 PM
With the new generations becoming obese and having weight related health probelms at a very young age it is all good and well to try and make children eat healthy.

But i think its very unfair to totally just ban them... The school canteen should offer a healthy menu with no junk food vending machines and they could TRY and advise adults the make their kids eat helathier but surly they cant dictate what us "young adults" eat.
Given the fact of all the convienece shops and supermarkets around these days, kids can just wait till after or before school to go to a shop and stuff thier face.

And whats the point of this restriction, it will use up valuable teachers time. Instead of checking to make sure people are eating right they should think up lesson plans and actually punish the real trouble makers in school.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Yes, but when people are told what's best and still continue to do as they please anyway, someone has to take responsibility and do it for them. If people don't like it they should sort their act out.

Yes and when people tell their governments how they want their food produced and what poisons they don't want in it, they tell us we can't 'harm business' with such demands and to swallow more of their 'approved', though highly unhealthy, food.

I don't like that one little bit but am having a hell of a time getting my government to sort it out.

AgentSmith, I do so hope you are a NWO disinfo. agent, because it is very sad to think people can declare what you do without being paid for it in some way or kind.

Again, will meat, eggs and milk be declared 'bad food'? I seem to remember one thread that claimed milk would be banned as 'bad', but not potatoe chips.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:03 PM
I find the idea of forcing kids to eat " healthy" to be extremly dumb considering the food supplied by the school probably isnt " healthy" either. Then again this is coming from a kid that went to a school that had cafeteria food so badly made that it felt like plastic, was usually cold as soon as we got it and it usually had something else in it that was not suppouse to be there. Theres also the fact that almost every teacher in the school usually mentioned that they have seen people get sick from eating the cafateria food while others have mentioned that potato chips are usually "healthier" then the cafateria food.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:07 PM
Mystery_Lady, you make for an interesting argument however valid your opinion might be you do not look at it from an external point. You are basing your argument around your own Government - the United State’s, when the initial post is about the United Kingdom and actually not the Government but rather the School. You also play the fear card, which so many on this forum do by labelling something as undemocratic and communistic in instance but however, due to the lack of access to the FMB campaign - you are not expected to know about a two year long, democratic campaign which has gained massive amounts of support in the United Kingdom.

I’ll take you back, in fact this is now going back two years in fact nearly three, a British Chef and Television presenter began to do research into school meals in the United Kingdom. Now, back when they were introduced the purpose was for under-privileged children to be able to eat a healthy meal and somewhere over the last 20 years [Especially during the Thatcher years] this had changed. The food that was being given to children, especially those whose family was on income support is a travesty to a Civilized Nation and was done in the spirit of cutting corners.

However, this is where the fallacy is shown as wrong. In 2004 an article was published showing that these injections of funding wasn’t needed and this in turn lead to the choice the School’s had. Healthy food or unhealthy food? What should they offer? The fact is, it should be the healthy alternative - children, especially those under 14 years of age should be protected they are not at a level where they fully understand the implications of their actions and parents neither seem to comprehend such a thing. This unhealthy lifestyle, will have devastating effects on the Nation I live in.

This evidence, is already being shown in the Susan Chinn study:

Prevalence of overweight was 5-6% in both 1974 and 1984 in white boys and 9-10% in white girls, and it rose to 9-10% in boys in 1994, to over 13% in English girls, and to nearly 16% in Scottish girls.

The impact of growth in obesity, has to be linked to diet and cannot be linked to genetics. The reason people gain weight, is when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure and although the level at which it burns differs from person-to-person, the healthy balance can be maintained the problem is people do not desire to find it. In fact, recently studies have found that single-locus mutations exist in less than 5% of obese people - that is a tiny minority of obese people, due to genetics.

The roll of parents is to raise their children - to the best of their ability - however, they do need guidance. The duel burden and influx of television-dinners, has had a hand in this as well as more indoor activity, such as homework and the influx of computers and television. There is a need for balance and the only way this can be accomplished is through education, both of parents and children. Yet, with the extreme instances of children - in some cases toddlers - being obese, the parents are to blame and something has to be done. Like it or not, this is another form of abuse but they do not realise.

This is where, School’s begin to play into the equation - this is an easy avenue for teachers to watch children and this is part of their role. They have not, for a very long period of time, been there just to teach but as guardian’s of children and from personnel experience this is a good thing. Meals, were intended for this purpose so 1/3rd of the recommended daily allowance could be consumed and they could make sure of this - yet it was for some reason placed on the backburner and now people are beginning to realise this. The petition signed by 271677 families in the United Kingdom, as well as the fact it was a point of debate during the 2005 election show how important it was for people. This was not an action which the Government and Council’s have taken against Public Opinion but rather intended to do as they desired.

You are not a witness in the United Kingdom, nor did you desire to research the backlog of information that brought this change about and instead are accusing it of being a dictatorship - however, last I checked a democracy is “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” and “Majority rule” - so when you have all three major parties, saying that bringing better food to School’s is a priority to them and they all do successfully in the election than clearly people support this. There was no riots, nor press coverage of “Save the Junk Food” in the United Kingdom. So should the Government stop doing what the will of the people is? If so, surely that is a dictatorship?

This, has been in the works since 2001 in the United Kingdom with School Meals Bill [In Scotland] and it is a welcome change to parents otherwise, they would have not agreed with it. I have yet to see an individual, who sees the introduction of healthy food as a bad thing and worse yet is the fact the food hardly has to change, burgers, chips, pizzas and so on and so fourth - food children love, can be healthy the problem is parents and school dinner staff desire to do it on the cheap and quickly. Even crisps, chocolates and so on and so fourth can easily be healthy but only in moderation and that was what they suggested. The reports and bills, are being made out to “ban all that is tasty” when in fact, it is banning processed goods, that are not healthy, it is removing burgers made of 20% meat and so on and so fourth. So the idea this is a bad thing, is a laugh - the fact these intentions for School dinners, have existed in the United Kingdom for decades and were only recently changed [now being changed back] show the idea that this is the work of the “New World Order” as more scare tactics, removing us away from the real issues like over surveillance of phones, e-mails and so on and so fourth.

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:09 PM
haha I dont have to deal with it since I'm in the US. Although thats not such a great thing...

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:48 PM
I feel that the state should have no say on what my children eat, drink, ect. I take it as an insult personally, and I pretty much dis-regard anything the school system says. I give them plenty of food to eat. Sure I get phone calls sometimes, but generally speaking I won't answer them.

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 03:14 AM
In my opinion public school is a brainwashing center, I'm sure the lunch thing is testing their power with outrageous demands. Sooner or later they'll have some sort of terrorist alert that brought the kids out of their public school and rewrited history into what either the truth is or total fiction

<< 1  2   >>

log in