"In future poor diets would be countered by “social responsibility, not state regulation.” From now on, he announced, communities will be left to find their own solutions. The companies which make their money from selling junk food and alcohol will be put in charge of ensuring that people consume less of them. I hope you have spotted the problem."
more
He's writing about the disasterous anti-social moves in Britain to pass the responsibility for healthy eating over to the purveyors of poor health, but George Monbiot could just as easily be penning a report for New Zealand.
15 comments:
What would you do?
Shane - I'd counter the influence of the industries that seek to sell foods that are demonstratively causative of obesity. In part that would involve redrawing guidelines for advertising as well as activating programmes at schools that encourage informed decision making by students.
There is an imbalance between agencies that sell unhealthy foods and 'groups' that would like the scales to be balanced, especially where children are involved - parents, for example, or health agencies or educationalists. The reason for the imbalance is money/profit. It profits the purveyors/producers greatly (selling those foods), yet there is little financial incentive for the other groups to press as hard as the fast/fat food industries do.
I'm for balancing the equation for the sake of a healthy society.
What would you do?
I'm curious, Robert, what do you think I would do?
Shane - my guess is you'd allow 'free for all' with no restrictions on seller and buyer alike.
indeed
Pity the little children, exposed to the greedy corporates.
It's the children who will suffer most - encouraged to eat junk food when they are young and bound to carry that habit into their mature years where they will swell the diabetes statistics (not to mention the knee surgery stats).
Someone has to represent them at the time when they are vulnerable to adult machinations ... Shane?
'Someone has to represent them at the time when they are vulnerable to adult machinations ... '
Who should that be?
You're a man of few words Shane, but many questions.
There are a lot of people who have a responsibility, legal and otherwise, to protect children from harm. The police do, as do teachers, who are charged with the care of students until they get back inside of their own gates. In loco parentis.
Boards of Trustees decide issues on behalf of students. The issue of what is sold in schools could be one that they need to manage. It could be a parent group that determines what is provided at school. Standards authorities can manage the quality and content of advertising that children are subject to, during their favourite viewing hours.
Is this answering your question?
I'd like to hear your views about this Shane.
My children are my responsibility until I consider them old enough to fend for themselves, although I cant imagine that ever happening!
I expect teachers & schools to help me to educate my kids. I would never expect them to discipline, feed, socialise...
In fact, the state school system is the last place I would want ANY of those things to happen.
I see a government monopoly as being at least as sinister as any corporate monopoly. I have the option of walking away from corporations products. Government mobocracies are inescapable - as are, sadly, busybodies who feel they know better, and who compel, legislate and force my freedoms (and responsibilities) away.
Ah Shane!
I expect teachers & schools to help me to educate my kids. I would never expect them to discipline, feed, socialise...
You'd not be happy for a teacher to educate your children about:
healthy eating?
appropriate behaviour with their peers?
the rules of games?
addressing older people appropriately?
and nor would you want a teacher to provide disincentives to any of your children's behaviours (discipline them)? Even something like,"you've not completed that task, therefore you must stay inside while the rest of us go outside for a game, and finish it" - in other words, discipline them?
Your children's teachers must feel very insecure around you, trying to work out exactly what your expectations are!
Hmmm... on a micro level, discipline is not the right word. I expect teachers to spend their time teaching my kids to think and to learn, along with a damn good foundation of knowledge.
I definitely DO NOT want teachers doing some of the things you state. I expect my kids to show regard for ALL, as deserved. Age is not an automatic license for respect.
Educate about healthy eating? Dammit - no. Healthy by who's standards? Keep the goddam food police out of my life.
Sure, these are kids, and imperfect, as are we all - me especially.
If teachers did not have to spend time teaching the rubbish you advocate, perhaps we would have some decent results from our school leavers?
The only form that a well functioning school should take is one which is attended voluntarily, connected to employers and their needs, and is completely beyond government interference of any kind.
There are moral questions to ask about compelling to attend state schools.
Anyway, this thread is about Monbiot and his adoration for and dependence on all things state, and I apologise for digressing.
I despise corporatism and crony government as much as I do this kind of Marxism.
Treating people like idiots has, unsurprisingly, bred idiots.
Government is not the answer, it is the problem.
Shane - Educate about healthy eating? Dammit - no. Healthy by who's standards? Keep the goddam food police out of my life.
Healthy eating, as taught in schools, includes instruction around safe food practices as well - not buttering your toast on the board used to cut up last night's chicken etc. From my experience, teaching healthy eating primarily involves encouraging children to eat their vegetables and fruits and taking care with the amounts of processed foods, such a Munchos, Tweezles and CookedinFatos they eat. Knowledge, which you clearly value, is a vital component for a child who wants to think their way through challenges and healthy eating, in this modern environment, is a challenge for children, especially those armed with money and with parents who take little interest in what they do with it (there are such parents, though clearly you are not one of those).
I recognise the problem you describe with 'government' Government is not the answer, it is the problem.
but know that in the broader sense, governing the actions and directions children take is important - parents have to do it (not a free-for-all in your household is it Shane?), teachers are bound to do it and as I indicated, so are other experienced adults in the community. Food is only one of the issues where young people lack both knowledge and experience and can benefit from that of older people.
Monbiot's main point, I thought, was that giving junk food producers free-rein will result in an unhealthier population. I agree that it will.
Despite all that, I think your idea:
The only form that a well functioning school should take is one which is attended voluntarily, connected to employers and their needs, and is completely beyond government interference of any kind.
has a lot of merit.
I am genuinely surprised at your last concurrence, sir! As my personal defence trainer reminds me - "assumption is the mother of all f*ckups"
Maybe you watermelons aint all bad...
..or maybe we're unexpectedly devious.
I'd be a starter for a school like the one you've described - in fact we've been talking about such a project for some time now...if you'd just like to enrol your own children in anticipation ...
Post a Comment