It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Scool Lunches = Threat to National Security?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
We must begin a program of massive regulation of the food supply. Freedom to eat what you want is causing a national catastrophe.


So basically, you're saying we should start rationing so people only get what they have to eat to survive.




posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble

Originally posted by SerialLurker
Hunger makes our brains more alert.


That is not true. Hunger causes the heavy energy using prefrontal cortex to become more dormant, thus limiting rational thought and self control. That is why you are cranky when you are hungry -- you literally have less control over your emotions.


Actually I will agree with you here.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB
It's not like that at all, it's just people dont realise that it's really not good giving them what they want.


It's not like what?

In this day and age I have very little tolerance for people who don't even know basic nutrition. I do not support or tolerate pampering kids or giving them whatever they want.


I think it would be interesting to see the difference of the behavior, and grades, when they are fed junk. vs fresh fruit. maybe some low GI foods like Oats.(not flap jacks!!) and just water to drink.

It would make a change. In a good way.

what do you put in the kids lunches?



Again, my kids eat school lunches every school day.

As for the difference between eating well and eating crap, it should be obvious by the mediocre society we currently live in. We, generally, eat garbage, produce garbage, and are measured by how much garbage we consume.

Fat and stupid is what we are becoming, so there's no need for any kind of experiment. Garbage in garbage out.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
No, let me tell ya what is a bigger National Security Threat.
Is the Government's policies that the soldier fights for.
More young folks are waking up about the corruption
and tyranny and won't risk their lives to fight for
the cause, because it is not for the common good
of the country. Yet the generals play dumb when they
see hundreds of soldiers commit suicide each year.
Make the cause for fighting a worthy and just one
and you will see justification in the ranks.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB
 


They should also realize that not everyone on ATS speaks English as their first language.



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


what exactly are you trying to say?

that im right but you hate me?

I dont see why you need to be so snide in your posts


This is why i said it's not like that at all.

Parents suck and are killing their children and costing everyone money (not to mention the eye-sore that is fat people)


you seem to be saying a lot, but not getting anywhere.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB
what exactly are you trying to say?


I think I've been very clear, but I'll rephrase for your benefit:

School lunches are not a threat to national security. The idea that they might be is so ridiculous that it should be scorned openly and often.


that im right but you hate me?

I dont see why you need to be so snide in your posts


I don't believe I've claimed you are right or wrong and I have no reason to hate you. I'd be interested where you got the idea that I said anything about you (implied or otherwise) at all.

As for me being "snide", I'm pretty sure one might read all sorts of tone to an atonal plain text post. Don't misconstrue my directness and plain speech as snide, it is not and carries no emotion.


you seem to be saying a lot, but not getting anywhere.


Parents are, by passing their poor habits along to their children, killing them, shortening their lifespans, creating and perpetuating easily preventable medical conditions, and costing everyone who pays taxes or for health insurance more money because of their poor choices and lack of common sense.

This is not in dispute, and I'm not sure why you'd want to. Perhaps it was unclear.

I suppose you could sum it up in two points.

1) National Security is more threatened by the poor educational standards of our current system than it could ever be by the lunches they serve.

2) Parents are a much larger threat to the health and nutritional lifestyle of children than schools are.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Grumble
We must begin a program of massive regulation of the food supply. Freedom to eat what you want is causing a national catastrophe.


So basically, you're saying we should start rationing so people only get what they have to eat to survive.


As an aside, here is a major problem in this country: too many people think that any form of government interference in a free market means impending dictatorship. Well, I have news for you -- dictatorship may be an impending problem, but it would not be caused by an independent, effective FDA. In essence, the "free market" lobbyists have brainwashed the electorate and bribed the politicians to allow their clients to profit from poisoning Americans, and if we protest that, we are "communists."

So I am not talking about rationing. I am just talking about sensible regulation. Food should mean real food. Poisonous, addictive, disease-causing modern processing and additive techniques should be banned, period.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


Actually, a major problem we have in this country is people being under the impression that their way is the only way and then trying to force everyone else to conform to their choices not realizing that what they are effectively doing is removing every one else's right to choose. Could foods be more nutritious and less full of fillers and useless ingredients from a nutritional stand-point? Absolutely. Does that mean that anyone who wants to eat something that does nothing more than make them feel full shouldn't be allowed to do so anymore? Absolutely not.

I'm amazed at the number of posts I have read recently advocating removing people's right to choose. Whether you realize it or not, that is what your doing. Many food manufacturers are voluntarily producing healthier versions of their products. There is no need for even more regulations that not only will remove my right to choose whether I buy the fattiest food I can find or not, but will also place an increased burden on taxpayers when we as a country already have more expenses than we have income from taxes.

What I see at an increasing rate on this site is people wanting more and more government interference. I see people asking the government to make their choices for them by eliminating options. I see people thinking that since they choose to do A, someone else choosing B is a complete idiot and needs the government to hold their hand and make sure they choose A instead. It's ridiculous! I've never in my life seen this many people convinced that the government knows what's good for them better than they do.

See, there's this thing called personal responsibility. It's not very popular anymore, but it really is a good thing. It's where people make their own choices and live with the consequences, while allowing others to do the same. Apparently, it's too much to ask for anymore though because every time I open a thread I'm bombarded with post after post from people thinking that the government needs to hold all of our hands and make sure we do the right thing. When exactly did free choice become a bad thing?

This has nothing to do with lobbying for a free market and everything to do my refusal to live in a nanny state where I don't have to worry about what choices to make because the government has already made them for me. This has to do with my complete amazement that just a few short years ago, it was rare to find this many people asking for more government intrusion while now it's everywhere you look. I must have missed the memo where everyone decided that government hand-holding was a good thing after all.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Jenna, many of my own views you would classify as Libertarian, but I think we have to get away from ideological platforms and move toward doing what works.

When you have a monopoly or oligopoly ( the food industry is a collection of oligopolies), the power wielded by the corporations will be sociopathic in nature. When it comes to food, we have bumped right up against the limitations of the human animal. We now realize, and we can prove, that the emotional mind (dopamine neuron system) will choose to consume much that is, in effect, poison, and that this is a common problem affecting a large percentage of the population. Could those people exercise free will and overcome that by using their prefrontal cortexes to overrule their emotions? Yes, they could. Will very many do so? I think it is safe to say that many will not.

So, do you let a man die with free will, stripped of health and dignity, 300 pounds, diabetic, sedentary, and with poor quality of life, or do you enact sensible regulation of the food industry to protect that man from their desire to profit from their knowledge of biology and chemistry by manufacturing pseudo-foods which will bathe him in dopamine as he slowly kills himself?

You can buy distilled spirits that are works of art. You can also buy toxic stews that are mixtures of roughly distilled ethanol with color and flavorings added. Both are considered the same under the law, but one is an alcoholic beverage to be respected in moderation, another is poison disguised in order to fool the human brain and deliver obscene profits. Can we not agree that we should not be trying to prohibit alcohol, but we should force companies who sell it to provide safe, honest products? Could we not do the same for food?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grumble
So, do you let a man die with free will, stripped of health and dignity, 300 pounds, diabetic, sedentary, and with poor quality of life, or do you enact sensible regulation of the food industry to protect that man from their desire to profit from their knowledge of biology and chemistry by manufacturing pseudo-foods which will bathe him in dopamine as he slowly kills himself?


If that is his choice, then so be it though I have to point out that you are using an absolute worst case scenario in your question when most people are not going to end up like that regardless of their eating choices. It's not my place to tell someone else what path to take through life. If it's someone I know and care about I can offer suggestions, but the choice is ultimately theirs and I have no business trying to take that choice away. You can't just take away someone's free will to protect them from themselves. That's not the government's place.

I have a friend who decided awhile back to change their eating habits in order to loose weight. I fully support their efforts to do so and encourage them whenever they need it even though I do not make all the same choices they do. It was their choice to make a change. When asked I offer my opinion, but I do not try to force any decisions on them because it's not my place to do so.


Can we not agree that we should not be trying to prohibit alcohol, but we should force companies who sell it to provide safe, honest products? Could we not do the same for food?


There is quite a difference between requiring food on the market to be safe for consumption so people aren't dying left and right as soon as it hits their stomachs and removing all choices aside from those that are the healthiest. As many times as the "experts" have changed their minds on what is healthy and what is not, I have no faith in them anymore.

I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here as well. In the past we have been told that:

* Chocolate was bad (helps keep blood pressure down)
* Milk causes cancer (they still can't decide if it does or if it prevents it)
* Fats are all bad, no they're good, no they're all bad except this one
* Soybeans are good for you (too much soy suppresses your thyroid, may also increase the risks of breast and prostate cancer)
* Tofu is good for you (has been linked to dementia)
* This food says diet on it so it's healthier than the regular version (causes cancer in lab rats)

And that's just a short list. I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more if I tried. Point being, all of the things I just listed as well as all the ones I didn't are fine in moderation. It's only when people have excessive amounts that they truly become harmful to our health. Some people eating or drinking excessive amounts of something does not mean that we should restrict it for everyone, whether it's through rationing, regulations, or whatever.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join