Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vince_Ulam, Dec 25, 2018.
Hands up if you're surprised the child was never immunised either.
What do you mean?
My level of activity is scaling up currently.
Bully for you. Most people just need q balanced diet.
Whatever that is.
Are you going to tell us? You seem to know what we should be eating.
You implied knowledge.
Just common sense, really. There's a lot of preciousness around diet, it seems to me. Eating sensibly isn't roocket science. We're incredibly lucky to have the choice we have.
The whole 'superfood' thing is an expensive con.
'Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.'
A diet is balanced if contains, over a period of maybe a week, all the nutrients required for the maintenance of good health, in appropriate proportions. This will vary throughout the year, by sex, age, level of activity, underlying pathologies, individual differences.
Some nutrients you can store in times of abundance e.g. iron, fat-soluble vitamins; others pass through and have to be replaced every day.
I used to teach this to Year 7 and they totally got it, so not sure why 2 adults who made a conscious dietary lifestyle decision should find it so difficult
I wouldn't go for secular dietary laws, but I would definitely go for better education. It seems that the father of the child wasn't concerned that his daughter, at the age of one, wasn't even crawling, and was very small, was because she was a girl and they were different to boys.
My thought is that that those who do not understand what they are taught about nutrition or who reject these lessons are more likely to acknowledge the reality of criminal justice and act to its anticipation.
Routine check-ups from birth to school should be compulsory. Failure to present the child should require you to turn up at a police station with the child to rearrange the appointment. It's more important than having a rear light out but seemingly never followed up.
Look at all these accounts of social workers knocking the door of a kid on the at-risk register, getting no reply and walking away. The accounts at the Serious Case Reviews when the child's been murdered, that is.
I agree that check-ups should be compulsory but I think that criminalising a third of the population for overfeeding a child on grease and sugar is unworkable. As for the likes of the fanatical australian pair, their ignorance is pitiful and needs addressing. Gaol time will not help their children.
What happens to vegan cat owners?
The problem with enforcing any kind of dietary laws would be the fact that many people,if we believe the msm ,already do not have enough money to buy what is recommended even now. So then what?..Are people imprisoned for the crime of breaking the law because they can't afford to buy the right foods? Or will it become the responsibility of schools...put taxes up significantly so every child can eat breakfast, lunch and dinner in school...thus ensuring they are fed according to the law...with.of course teachers getting the blame if any child develops a dietary related illness.
It would be very hard to do.
It would of course help if dietary advice didn't keep changing...
Six slices a day is the well balanced way / cut down on your carbs
Go to work on an egg / eggs are full of salmonella / eggs are healthy
Animal fats are bad for you, eat margerine / polyunsaturated fats are bad for you / margerine is one molecule away from plastic
Breakfast cereals are full of vitamins / breakfast cereals are full of sugar
Cow's milk is full of calcium / milk is full of growth hormone and antibiotics, drink almond milk / almond milk is not ecologically friendly
Meat is bad, eat soya / soya farms are destroying the rainforests
Processed foods are bad, eat raw / paleo is the most natural / humans aren't designed to eat meat / humans are designed to eat meat ... And so it goes on.
The dietary advice I grew up with has changed several times over the years. The dietary advice these parents were following was uninformed and extreme, but they had their reasons for following it.
It has been observed that the healthiest diet we had was during war rationing, but who now has time to grow their own veg? Processed foods, full of salt, sugar, various addidtves etc. are comparitively much cheaper than fresh, organic eco-friendly produce, so that is what you give your kids when you have limited funds.
If there were secular food laws, who would you sue when the dietary advice behind those laws (no doubt given by companies with an interest in making a profit) turned out to be completely wrong?
Vince ulam's example in his OP was of a child made ill by parents following an extreme diet. Th father pled ignorance but I really don't think ignorance alone was a play there. I think there must have been a seriously neurotic relationship with food going on as well. In the end, the state did the right thing and intervened. No new law was needed.
Whence this statistic?