Thread: This burns my bacon! More nanny state bureaucratic nonesense.

Originally Posted by Jeltz

There is a balance to strike,

My wife works at our local primary school (ages 4-11), if the school finds a child who is sent to school with an unhealthy meal on a regular basis then the parents would be contacted about it. The occasional bag of crisps (chips to Americans) is OK but if that was the daily mainstay then the school would speak to the parents. Peanut products are banned due to allergies and chocolate bars are banned too on the grounds of being unhealthy.

Obesity is a major problem and school is there not just to teach children how to read and write it is there to give them the skills for life. Currently we have the 1st generation predicted to live a shorter life than their parents so it is clear that many adults do no know how to feed themselves properly let alone their children.

We may call it a nanny state but who is expected to pick up the bill for problems associated with the increasing levels of obesity. In the UK its the state, I know there are differences in the US with welfare but presumably there are still costs incurred by the state relating to the numbers of obese people.

I agree. There is a balance to strike. But doing it through law doesn't work. People still use drugs. Education is key. Why can't they put this as part of health class?

As far as the cost? That's why national healthcare wont work. If we can do whatever we want and not pay for it, then why not? If we can eat like slobs, get unhealthy and have someone else pick up the bill, then we will. The fundamental premis to our society is that we are individually responsible. We look out for ourselves. That's the caplitalist way. Granted, it's in society's intrest to look out for those who cant, but we shouldn't enable those who won't.