NY bans homemade goods at Bake sales

[Alicia Leonard]

I agree with accurate labeling too. You should know that a blooming onion is about 2500 calories or some outrageous number and maybe 30 grams of saturated fat. That's not pussification. That's just part of harm reduction for the bold adventurous diner who wants to live on the edge. Then you know you need to drink a 1.5 liter bottle of red wine to unclog those arteries. (might be good to start off with a Prilosec or 2) So yes, information is good, I'll go along with that.

I agree because I want to know. I read labels at the store and would do the same when eating out. Many have this online, but I never know where I am going till I end up there. This would make it easier.

 

[scooterbug44]

If you have 20 or more locations, you are serving set and mass produced recipes and should be able to easily provide calorie info. It's insane what some foods contain as far as fat and calories.

And I don't think limiting bake sales of certain items to once a month OR after 6 pm (when most extracurricular practices get out and competitions are going on) is exactly a totalitarian police state move.

Yes, the sales do raise a bunch a money, but they aren't forbidding the sales. You can sell food every single day as part of a fundraising effort as long as it is food that meets certain dietary guidelines.

Considering 40% of the kids in the district are overweight/obese I don't see anything wrong with making healthier food available on campus. (Not sure exactly how healthy some of the "approved" processed foods are, but it sounds like they do at least meet certain nutritional guidelines.)

 

[Mango]

They are way off in their calculations of of what they are considering obese. I have never seen an obese kid in New York City. Matter of fact, NYC is land of skinny models and most of the restaurants had caloric content labels or signs in their establishments way before any other State and before there were any laws. People in NYC are very cognizant of their weight. Kids probably burn more calories than most just by walking or commuting to school.

Does anyone really think that the allowable foods, like Dorito, Pop Tarts and Bagged Chips is healthier than a homemade snack that has no preservatives and all of the other crap they put in food?

Government needs to let parents do the parenting and kids be kids.

 

[scooterbug44]

As I said, I question how healthy some of the manufactured snacks really are, but at least they have to meet calorie, fat, and sodium guidelines. Some of the items they mentioned in the article were definitely worse than some of the manufactured items - pies, cakes, cupcakes, bars full of chocolate, brownies etc.

There ARE fat and/or unhealthy people/kids in NYC and I see nothing wrong with trying to promote healthier diets and lifestyles.

Kids continue to get less exercise, be more sedentary, weigh more, and eat less nutritious foods. Kudos to this school district for trying to make some small and IMO very reasonable changes to combat that.

 

[Em]

You criticize an imaginary "job creation bill, disguised" in this post, now let's scroll down.




Your suggestion here from another thread will require some type of "job creation bill, disguised" to make sure these purchases are genuine. The difference here is you want the govt. to give you money for activities you are presently engaged in.

Not so, rebates in my post above would cover it. AND, because there were no claims from those who would receive the rebate, there would likely be a decrease in the number of claims handlers.

We are not talking about "my personal activities." Maybe you are, but I'm not. I'm talking about giving people an incentive not to only be healthy, but to also cut healthcare expenses for the country as a whole. If we are a healthier nation, we will spend less on healthcare. One problem with the current way we treat health care is that we treat symptoms of the problem rather than treating the actual problem. Doctors can treat symptoms. They can also tell a overweight smoker ways to improve their health. However, there doesn't seem to be any incentive for the person to change their lifestyle, exercise routine and eating habits -- it is obvious that living longer is not as important as money to many people.

 

[poppy]

Not so, rebates in my post above would cover it. AND, because there were no claims from those who would receive the rebate, there would likely be a decrease in the number of claims handlers.

We are not talking about "my personal activities." Maybe you are, but I'm not. I'm talking about giving people an incentive not to only be healthy, but to also cut healthcare expenses for the country as a whole. If we are a healthier nation, we will spend less on healthcare. One problem with the current way we treat health care is that we treat symptoms of the problem rather than treating the actual problem. Doctors can treat symptoms. They can also tell a overweight smoker ways to improve their health. However, there doesn't seem to be any incentive for the person to change their lifestyle, exercise routine and eating habits -- it is obvious that living longer is not as important as money to many people.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. Now that many more people will be able to see a doctor for preventative medicine let's hope a change in lifestyle will soon follow for those who smoke, over eat, and never get off the sofa except for a snack and a beer (forget the snack and beer part, that would be me). In order for some people to change their lifestyle they just have to be told they should do it by someone other than a spouse.