Speaker: Are there opportunities within the Government’s childhood obesity plan?
229 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
So, is wine and beer from the supermarket food?
If it's any help, the last time I looked emergency vouchers issued by certain welfare agencies, redeemable at Pak'nSave, were endorsed to prevent their being used to purchase booze.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
If it’s any help, the last time I looked emergency vouchers issued by certain welfare agencies, redeemable at Pak’nSave, were endorsed to prevent their being used to purchase booze.
Yep...and tobacco products. And they do check. And they do yell from the checkout to the supervisor that someone's here with a voucher from WINZ or CYFs.
And while we're on the subject of welfare agencies....did y'all know that foster parents are not allowed to give their charges bottles to suck on in bed?
Even three year olds with a sucky bottle habit of their small lifetime.
So...while you're trying to show this wee kid that he is loved and cared for and not being punished, and even though we're strangers, you're a kid and we love you but no you can't have your sucky bottle of milo take to bed...cue loud screams from already distressed child.
-
That would be because they're trying to prevent serious tooth decay in pre-schoolers. Milk sugar on your teeth all night is not good for them.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
I have made constructive suggestions. Perhaps you’d like to be constructive also.
I did...comment no.6.
Tax sugary processed foods. Decrease GST on fresh fruit and veg. And fresh meat.
Just after continuing my personal 'fat shaming story' and before I led the thread down the path of cullinary unrighteousness by relating a cooking tale.
Mea culpa
I'll leave you to it. -
I think “culinary righteousness” is what we’ve actually been arguing AGAINST. But yeah, OK, flouncing is good too.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
That would be because they’re trying to prevent serious tooth decay in pre-schoolers. Milk sugar on your teeth all night is not good for them.
Err, yes, kinda been talking about that....but...telling the actual parents not to do it appears to be all 'hand wavy' judgmental....
I did put up some links to the sugary drinks in baby bottle causing rotten teeth issue...here's another one...
.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710408
and another one....http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/8199941/Dismay-at-tooth-decay-in-Kiwi-kids
Dental surgery services are so stretched, there are reports of waiting lists of up to 100 children at some hospitals.
In the worst cases, dentists are forced to extract a mouthful of baby teeth from preschoolers, often because toddlers are given bottles of juice or fizzy drinks.
Top dentists have vented frustrations that severe tooth decay is one of the most common and costly diseases of children, yet also completely preventable.
Auckland children's dentist Nina Vasan - who treated a three-year-old with 10 cavities last week - said it's not just a disease of the poor. She treats children of all ages and demographics.
Vasan, a Kidz-teeth paediatrician, said parents are often shocked to discover the extent of the problem.
"Parents feel really guilty because it may have been a lack of their knowledge. Sometimes parents are crying and really upset because they feel they are to blame."
A condition dubbed "baby bottle teeth decay", midnight snacks and a lack of dental check-ups are all chipping away at children's teeth.
Vasan says most parents change their habits to stop decay recurring, but a Waikato Hospital dentist says some parents are not getting the message.
and another one....http://fizz.org.nz/sites/fizz.org.nz/files/6%20Sugar%20Sweetened%20Beverages,%20Obesity,%20Diabetes%20and%20Oral%20Health.pdf
-
Lilith __, in reply to
.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
were endorsed to prevent their being used to purchase booze.
Yeah. And my home-made pasta sauce has wine in it.
-
Juice and/or fizzy in baby bottles is what gets the media coverage and the outrage going, but equally harmful things like putting kids to bed with a bottle are considered normal kind parenting by many many people. Focusing on the former at the expense of the latter feels more like a moral panic than a genuine health initiative. It's easier to point the finger at a media myth (like Danielle said, who actually does that?) than change something people see as normal. See also: adults complaining about underage drinking when overage drinking is just as problematic.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Yeah. And my home-made pasta sauce has wine in it.
For some reason I was reminded of my mother's Christchurch next door neighbour back in the Muldoon era, who was the public face of an organisation called CARP, aka Campaign Against Rising Prices. When she listed chocolate biscuits among the items which had recently undergone a steep price rise she received an abusive call from an angry Fendalton lady who told her "You people shouldn't have chocolate biscuits!"
-
I heard what might be an urban legend about the Kirk era Labour Party, putting up taxes on makeup as a ploy for the feminist vote, strange as that sounds. It's all sumptuary laws for a modern age.
-
Once, long ago, I was left unable to pay my rent due to a flatmate suddenly moving out just before Christmas. WINZ couldn't, they said, help with the rent, but they could give me a $60 food voucher (to be spent in a single trip). I had already bought food for the week (which was why I didn't have money for extra rent) and, with only a tiny fridge and even smaller icebox, I couldn't stock up on fresh food, so that $60 was spent, almost entirely, on treats like chocolate biscuits and orange juice. I couldn't get my actual needs met, but I was able to buy a few scraps of happiness.
-
Danielle, in reply to
I don't think there's anyone here who believes that sugar DOESN'T cause tooth decay. We're hardly members of the Flat Earth Society.
I'm going to keep this very simple. Public health educational initiatives GOOD and EFFECTIVE (probably); accosting random parents at the dairy BAD and INEFFECTIVE (probably).
So wandering the earth making judgement calls about what you see as poor parenting isn't doing any fundamental social good. It just gives professional concern trolls a sense of self-satisfaction.
-
This seems a lovely initiative: Garden To Table: working with schools to teach kids how to grow, harvest, and prepare vegetables.
Why not buy a cute teatowel to support them? Perfect for Xmas.
-
Danielle, in reply to
I'm still allowed to hate gardening more than anything, right? :)
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Public health educational initiatives GOOD and EFFECTIVE (probably)
Except that they haven't been so far - as numerous health professionals have pointed out - a punitive tax seems to be the only thing we haven't tried thus far. And given the near total lack of support for such an initiative on this thread, I guess one can see why JK's lot are against it .. it's not just their corporate friends that would scream foul.
-
Danielle, in reply to
a punitive tax seems to be the only thing we haven’t tried thus far
Did you even read Megan's amazing, beautiful post up there in which she lays out structural changes which have NOT been tried and are not even LIKELY to be tried and yet would make HUGE differences without being at all punitive? Have you read any of the posts in which people might conceivably be pro such a tax IF OTHER VERY IMPORTANT CONDITIONS ARE MET? Finally, am I losing my fucking mind on this thread? (Yes.)
-
Danielle, in reply to
I think Twitter Me is coming to hang out with Public Address Me, with predictable results. ;)
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
a punitive tax seems to be the only thing we haven’t tried thus far
We haven't tried giving everyone ponies. It wouldn't work, but hey, we haven't tried it.
it’s not just their corporate friends that would scream foul
I'm against it because it's punitive - meaning punishing - and a horrible thing to do to people who are struggling. I'm against it because it would increase the functional poverty of families, and we all know that poverty is really bad for children. I'm against it because it's wrong both morally and practically.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I’m still allowed to hate gardening more than anything, right? :)
If you buy the teatowel, no one will ever know. ;-)
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Did you even read Megan’s amazing, beautiful post up there in which she lays out structural changes which have NOT been tried and are not even LIKELY to be tried and yet would make HUGE differences without being at all punitive?
I did - and yes I'm all for all those ideas, but they relate to wider, big picture issues.
With the focus on obesity and health, I also read the link the author of this blog post made to what ought to be and up front, first action point made by WHO is TAX. Second is ENVIRONMENT.
Same points made by Dr Toomath;
Dr Toomath is honest about this. She is not a big believer in free will at the best of times, she says, and especially not in this case.
"The idea that we can describe the problem in terms of personal responsibility, you know, that it can be called a choice, a lifestyle choice, it's crap. There's no choice ... To think that people choose to be obese, and if you educated them better, or if they were more steely and determined, self-denying, that they could not be the shape they are, is just rubbish."
Which screams out at me - TAX and ENVIRONMENT.
Whereas you're advocating EDUCATION.
I'm not losing my f..ing mind - I'm just advocating for what would work..
-
Danielle, in reply to
yes I’m all for all those ideas, but they relate to wider, big picture issues.
Yes, they do. Because we're arguing that narrowly focussing on "shame and tax the fat kids and their parents" is an unhelpful, simplistic strategy.
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
and a horrible thing to do to people who are struggling.
What? It would be horrible to put stuff that is slowly but surely poisoning them out of their reach financially? Do you think the same of the tax on tobacco?
I’m against it because it would increase the functional poverty of families
I have no idea what is meant by "functional poverty" - but how can drinking free water, as opposed to not-free fizzy drink increase poverty?
and we all know that poverty is really bad for children.
Just as we know that obesity and tooth decay are bad for children.
I’m against it because it’s wrong both morally and practically.
So was what we have done with respect to tobacco also morally and practically wrong?
-
Danielle, in reply to
You don't need nicotine to live. You need food to live.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
So was what we have done with respect to tobacco also morally and practically wrong?
Yes. Food and tobacco are exactly the same.
I have no idea what is meant by “functional poverty” – but how can drinking free water, as opposed to not-free fizzy drink increase poverty?
But you're not just talking about sugary drinks, right? You're also talking about taxing "bad" food. So the cost of some foods goes up, and the costs of no foods go down, so people have to spend more money on food. Except the poorest people can't do that, so they have to go without something. Functional poverty. We already have kids going to school with no breakfast and no lunch. Is no food better than "bad" food?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.