What do you think of this? (junk food)

[Teaching3bears]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/05/909969074/mexico-bans-sale-of-junk-food-to-minors#:~:text=Under new laws in Oaxaca,through the Oaxaca state congress.

This is an old article but I just saw it.  Some states in Mexico are not allowing those under 18 to purchase junk food in order to combat obesity.  What do you think of this?  Is it a step in the right direction?  Do you think they should do this where you live?

[ScoutTN]

Nope.
No food police. 

Obesity has a multitude of causes, culturally and physically, and governmental regulation is absolutely not the solution.

[HomeAgain]

I don't think banning the sale to minors will do much about the problem.  Kids still eat most meals at home.  I'd rather see a value-added tax (VAT) imposed on processed foods and stricter guidelines to how food can be processed.  I'd like to see less food deserts and more traveling outdoor markets.  I want fresher food in schools and a strict requirement on how much added sugar can be in a meal served at a school or childcare setting.

[Ting Tang]

I'm usually a lover of freedom; however, I wish someone would ban me from buying it, lol.  In all honesty, the western diet is so bad.  Even if you have a thin build, sugar could be harming you.  It is hidden in so many things that we might think are healthier choices, too.  I have been trying to do better.  When I got home from the grocery store the other day, I discovered one of my healthier purchases was already past date...ugh. 

I can't imagine kid purchases lead to obesity, though.  We parents buy it for a lot of reasons, even though we know better.  I'm sure it is no different in Mexico. I think the industry has a lot of lobbyists. 

[regentrude]

It's completely pointless. Just noisy.
First of all, most of what kids eat they eat at home, purchased by their parent, or at school. There should be policies for healthier school food, and against the ever present sugary snacks at every school function or extracurricular (which are, again, adult bought).
Second, purchasing the occasional sweet snack or drink won't harm anybody. Legislating purchasing should be done sparingly and reserved for products that are harmful to children in small doses, like alcohol and tobacco. A chocolate bar is not the same as a beer.

[Drama Llama]

22 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I don't think banning the sale to minors will do much about the problem.  Kids still eat most meals at home.  I'd rather see a value-added tax (VAT) imposed on processed foods and stricter guidelines to how food can be processed.  I'd like to see less food deserts and more traveling outdoor markets.  I want fresher food in schools and a strict requirement on how much added sugar can be in a meal served at a school or childcare setting.

I don;t agree with banning the sale to minors.  But I am amazed at how many teenagers my kids know who have basically unlimited apple pay on their phone and eat the vast majority of their calories outside of the home.   Stop at Starbucks enroute to school, stop at Chipotle on the way home, uber eats some Big Macs.  All in a day.

 

[chocolate-chip chooky]

I've spent two years working on convincing my daughter with an ED that the odd chocolate bar or piece of cake or packet of chips won't make her fat. I do an internal happy dance when she does eat these things. Only recently has she been able to go and purchase these things on her own - a huge step in her recovery!

This is just an example that blanket rules may not suit a diverse population. 

[HomeAgain]

14 minutes ago, BandH said:

I don;t agree with banning the sale to minors.  But I am amazed at how many teenagers my kids know who have basically unlimited apple pay on their phone and eat the vast majority of their calories outside of the home.   Stop at Starbucks enroute to school, stop at Chipotle on the way home, uber eats some Big Macs.  All in a day.

 

Same.  My eating habits were terrible as a teen.  But, I grew up going to an elementary school that made meals right there every day, I had plain ingredient, home cooked meals every day....and when I became an adult my diet reverted back to those same sort of choices.  My diet as a teen sucked, but it didn't negate the years of healthier food.

I don't think a lot of kids today have the same chance.  I post pictures of our meals occasionally and other parents have asked, "you don't eat like that all the time, do you??"  Well, yeah.  My kid would go insane on a diet of fried food offered by snack bars at the rinks and the meals we make are often 20 minutes.  I mean, he probably would not go insane, but he wouldn't be happy.  I don't micromanage what he eats (he brings lunch and buys lunch at school), and I know he is eating more junk than a healthy body needs, but I have faith that constant exposure to good food will shape his eating habits as an adult.

Many kids eat 2 meals a day at school.  I think we owe it to them to serve something fresher and more variety than what they currently get at most schools. 

[Shoeless]

I am opposed to legislating junk food. That being said, no one should be eating processed junk food because it's really unhealthy. There is plenty of data that demonstrates how unhealthy it is. 

I would rather my diabetic husband eat a slice of homemade cake than the diet, low carb, highly processed junk that is advertised as "healthy" for diabetics.

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, regentrude said:

It's completely pointless. Just noisy.
First of all, most of what kids eat they eat at home, purchased by their parent, or at school. There should be policies for healthier school food, and against the ever present sugary snacks at every school function or extracurricular (which are, again, adult bought).
Second, purchasing the occasional sweet snack or drink won't harm anybody. Legislating purchasing should be done sparingly and reserved for products that are harmful to children in small doses, like alcohol and tobacco. A chocolate bar is not the same as a beer.

Agreed. We need a change in food culture in the states, not useless regulations.

[ScoutTN]

5 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Agreed. We need a change in food culture in the states, not useless regulations.

Yes! 

[KungFuPanda]

I know it sounds like sOciaLisM, but I’d love to see nutritionally sound breakfasts and lunches served at schools to every child regardless of income. As a wealthy nation I feel we CAN afford to feed our children and develop their palates. A healthy populace is in everyone’s best interest and sound nutrition (plus time to eat and exercise) can save public money in the long run.
 

Two meals a day, five days a week, can counteract the negative impacts of the standard American diet. I grew up in poor rural schools, but we had small class sizes and food made from scratch every day that included fresh, seasonal produce. 

[SKL]

It would make more sense to ban middle aged people from eating junk food, LOL.

I was a junk food junkie as a teen, and it taught me some things while my body was still very forgiving.

I don't think it's so much an issue of obesity at that age, as exploitation of vulnerable people.

[Clarita]

I would rather them work on better labeling so that they can't label junk food to make it look healthy.

[Bootsie]

I would think that very little of the obesity problem is that 16 and 17 year old's are buying junk food without their parents' knowledge.  So, I don't think this would be effective in helping solve the problem.  And, what will determine "junk food"?  Gatorade? Ice cream?  pancakes? muffin? 

[Carrie12345]

9 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Agreed. We need a change in food culture in the states, not useless regulations.

That’s what it comes down to (imo, of course.) Unfortunately, doing so is extremely complex. 

I’m not gonna lie, I put on a few lbs when I got access to my own money and transportation. Not to obesity standards, but still a change. My oldest two kids gained a lot more. My 3rd, no, but I fear she may have a low-level ed.

That said, my youngest two have free access to more “junk” food in our house than the older ones ever did (I got lazy, okay?!), and one is still underweight while the other is an ideal weight and fit. But they have healthy foods at home, too, and very limited fast food or take out. 

Nutritionally, socially, financially, accessibly, and psychologically, food is super complex.

[Faith-manor]

15 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

Nutritionally, socially, financially, accessibly, and psychologically, food is super complex.

It really is complex, so there aren't any quick fixes.

I do think that one thing that needs to change is the concept of food at everything, snacking all the time. We used to hold regular, 4-H club meetings on Saturdays from 10 am - noon. We always let out at noon and we didn't have a single family who drove more than 20 minutes to the meeting. We were a science club so every meeting was an experiment/project, and we were busy the entire time. There was no need for food. None. Everyone was able to make it home by lunch time, and if their kids had been up and eaten breakfast early, they could have given them something before they arrived at the club meeting. Nope. Parents insisted there had to be food for the kids at the meetings. I refused to provide it so they all took turns bringing it, and it was ALWAYS junk food. One time I said I would take a turn, and brought grapes, tangerine slices, and carrot sticks. The beverage was water in a big pitcher and wax paper cups since those booze grade as well as little NOT decorated paper dessert size cake plates, again biodegradable. The parents were mortified that I didn't bring fun food. The kids ate it up. Some kids looked like they hadn't seen a piece of fruit in years! But I am sure that was not the case at all, it just was different from the usual chips, pretzels, and cookies so it seemed exciting probably.

My husband says one of the benefits of working from home is that if he is snacky, he can grab the sunflower and pumpkin seeds I keep for him. At work, they keep a constant array of just junk and pastries, and everyone is constantly snacking throughout the day, none of it is healthy and it is so hard not to engage in it.

At my last music/fine arts job, I had parents who thought I should have a snack break during the 1 hr, children's choir rehearsal. My head was imploding while I smiled sweetly and said that children can go one hour without eating, and that for singing purposes, we took water breaks, not food breaks. 

I also think that the ways in which foods are cooked and presented need to change. My sister was telling me that in the local school district near her (Southern France), they have actual chefs running the kitchens and the food is marvelous, Mediterranean style meals, and desserts are only served on the holidays. The lunch hour is a full hour with adults eating along with the children, lingering over the meal, talking and enjoying it slowly. Here, my local school district gives them half an hour, and they only get 10 minutes from the time they sit down with their tray to be done eating and outside. High schoolers eat in 20 minute shifts in a cafeteria not large enough to house the students so they stagger them, and boot anyone out without finishing if not done when the bell rings. It teaches them from a young age to wolf down their food which isn't good for digestion, and also means all the food has to be fast, easy to eat stuff. No one is going to serve elementary students chicken and vegetable stew with salads, fresh apples and pears that take a while to eat, and risotto when ten minutes is all they have, not to mention running the kitchen on a skeleton crew. So chicken nuggets, French fries, corn, and canned fruit cocktail it is. Our school district calls ketchup and pizza sauce "the serving of vegetables". I would rather they give the kids a peanut butter sandwich, string cheese, carrot sticks, and grapes...easy peasy...than " cook" for them. Chocolate milk and cookies. Everyday they always offer chocolate milk and cookies. Why can't they wait and just offer something fun and special at Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Valentine's? Why does this kind of sugar content have to always be available at school? At one point, breakfast for the kids eating two "meals" at school was a pop tart and chocolate milk! 😠

But yes. Complex. So many issues. Children raised in food desserts, nutritious food being more expensive and time not available for preparation or not having learned cooking skills to begin with, employers and schools not valuing meal time, the rush rush rush culture of our society, governmental policies that favor food company profits over community health, the list is long. 

[vonfirmath]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

of vegetables". I would rather they give the kids a peanut butter sandwich, string cheese, carrot sticks, and grapes...easy peasy...than " cook" for them. Chocolate milk and cookies. Everyday they always offer chocolate milk and cookies. Why can't they wait and just offer something fun and special at Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Valentine's? Why does this kind of sugar content have to always be available at school? At one point, breakfast for the kids eating two "meals" at school was a pop tart and chocolate milk! 😠

Most of my kids' schools to this point have not served peanut butter sandwiches at all -- even to kids who forgot their lunch. Due to peanut butter allergy and the airborne nature. My daughter would have LOVED this meal. Though she would have eaten the peanut butter sandwich and thrown the rest away.

They serve cheese sandwiches (which my daughter cannot have due to a dairy allergy).

[saraha]

In defense of cafeteria ladies, they have almost no control over what they serve. Because lunches are subsidized by the government, the government only allows them to buy from approved contractors. Someone goes in depth into planning what nutritional needs children have and then comb through vendor offerings to meet those needs. Big food companies can guarantee consistency so schools don’t have to worry about being in compliance. Deviating from their plan can cause a school to lose their lunch funding. My aunt was a cafeteria lady back in the day and watched the change over before retiring. She said it was sad. She would make her special meatloaf and it was popularly received back when she and her team did all the actual cooking. Once the government got involved, she would serve the frozen meals they were told to purchase and make her meatloaf as a once a month chef’s special. It did not take too long before what had been her most popular dish became the least popular offering and she stopped making it. Kind of like when Jamie Oliver did that show on fixing American school lunches. He went in there and showed these ladies how to cook, and the most memorable part of that for me was when she said, yup, that is good and healthy, but if it’s not on the government approved list, it doesn’t matter.

The government however, definitely should change. I had high hopes that Michelle Obama was going to be able to enact changes, but the government food contracts are too much to fight against

[regentrude]

9 minutes ago, saraha said:

, but the government food contracts are too much to fight against

It's not just that. Many schools are not equipped to actually cook on site - all they can do is reheat pre-prepped stuff. So a change would require a huge infrastructure investment.

[happypamama]

5 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I would think that very little of the obesity problem is that 16 and 17 year old's are buying junk food without their parents' knowledge.  So, I don't think this would be effective in helping solve the problem.  And, what will determine "junk food"?  Gatorade? Ice cream?  pancakes? muffin? 

This, and what so many others have said as well.  Who determines?  Is a white flour, white sugar muffin really that much better than a coke?

 

I have a friend who compared the nutritional content of ice cream and yogurt (not frozen) when her kid was little.  Similar sugar profiles, and the yogurt really did not have much, if any, more protein.  But one is a socially acceptable breakfast food and the other is not.

 

I don't think prohibiting minors from buying "junk" foods is really the thing.  And in some instances, I would rather my kid be able to purchase what they need, or even what they want.  What if my active, healthy kid wanted a coke and a chocolate bar on their way home from practice?  Maybe that was the only "junk" food they'd eaten all week, and maybe I'd okayed it.  It's silly to police food.

[vonfirmath]

16 minutes ago, happypamama said:

 

I don't think prohibiting minors from buying "junk" foods is really the thing.  And in some instances, I would rather my kid be able to purchase what they need, or even what they want.  What if my active, healthy kid wanted a coke and a chocolate bar on their way home from practice?  Maybe that was the only "junk" food they'd eaten all week, and maybe I'd okayed it.  It's silly to police food.

I would say I disagree with policing food at the government level

A summer camp we go to keeps the camp store closed most of the week to prevent kids buys lots of soda and sugar and getting sick (And thus having to leave camp). Usually it is open at the end of the week. This year it was not open at all.

Given that this was done after having a couple of years they had to send kids home due to overdosing on sugar and getting sick, this does not bother me.  They are also VERY good at making sure they have a variety of food available frequently (Always have fruit out, take various carby snacks around twice a day and good full meals three times a day including dessert choice after lunch and dinner -- I'm sure people would decry some of the stuff they have as unhealthy but they are balancing what kids will eat, what fits the budget, what they can actually get delivered (even at a camp, sometimes not all the food you ordered is actually delivered! Imagine!) and being nutritionally balanced.

Edited August 7, 2023 by vonfirmath

[happypamama]

17 minutes ago, vonfirmath said:

I would say I disagree with policing food at the government level

A summer camp we go to keeps the camp store closed most of the week to prevent kids buys lots of soda and sugar and getting sick (And thus having to leave camp). Usually it is open at the end of the week. This year it was not open at all.

Given that this was done after having a couple of years they had to send kids home due to overdosing on sugar and getting sick, this does not bother me.  They are also VERY good at making sure they have a variety of food available frequently (Always have fruit out, take various carby snacks around twice a day and good full meals three times a day including dessert choice after lunch and dinner -- I'm sure people would decry some of the stuff they have as unhealthy but they are balancing what kids will eat, what fits the budget, what they can actually get delivered (even at a camp, sometimes not all the food you ordered is actually delivered! Imagine!) and being nutritionally balanced.

Well, yes, of course I mean at the government level.  

[Frances]

5 hours ago, happypamama said:

I have a friend who compared the nutritional content of ice cream and yogurt (not frozen) when her kid was little.  Similar sugar profiles, and the yogurt really did not have much, if any, more protein.  But one is a socially acceptable breakfast food and the other is not.

This comparison is going to vary widely based on the yogurt chosen. At one extreme you basically have the yogurt equivalent of Fruit Loops or Coco Puffs and at the other extreme you have plain Greek yogurt with no added sugar and lots of protein to which fresh fruit, nuts, etc can be added.

[Catwoman]

7 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

At one point, breakfast for the kids eating two "meals" at school was a pop tart and chocolate milk! 😠

I could go for a Pop Tart and some chocolate milk right now!

They're going to have to pry my junk food from my cold, dead hands. 

😉 

[Faith-manor]

13 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I could go for a Pop Tart and some chocolate milk right now!

They're going to have to pry my junk food from my cold, dead hands. 

😉

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂