Is it an attack on children's human rights to force them to eat healthily and keep them away from junk food

Question

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/nmeals16.xml

Answer 1

You're asking a lot of insightful questions today. Good work. I think that people put way too much focus on what rights children should have these days. Children are still learning values and morals and are at a venerable stage in life. They should be given certain choices but not the ones which could damage their health. I wouldn't ask a 9 year old child if they wanted to smoke so why should I give them the choice of a hamburger? It may seem unfair to the child but they have to get to an age where they they can make a decision based on more than 'HM..tastes good'.

Answer 2

This is not an attack on anyone's rights. Here in the States, we have a huge problem with obese adults and children. Junk food is just that, junk. The eating habits of the parents are often passed to the children, but if this is a case of a child not wanting to eat their vegetables, then too bad. Fast food, chips and the like have become a little too mainstream and food is rapidly evolving into another convenience. I personally believe that eating nutritious meals as a family whenever possible are good for both the social and physical health of those involved. It is important to teach children to eat right at an early age and as they age, make informed dietary decisions.

Answer 3

Perhaps it’s the reverse. Children have a right to live healthy, I’m sure not all the parents of those children in that school are happy the school decision which is in the best interest of the young children is being overridden by a group irresponsible parents who are no doubt getting some ‘cash back’ on those deliveries to school.

Junk food has a loose description, anything can come under junk, and anything not in moderation is bad for you.

That school in focus has stated Friday as a day for chips, it’s not as if they’ll go without. The word ‘healthy’ is tagged to vegetables, but I hardly doubt all they are eating is vegetables, many meals from many origins are healthy.

Physical performance can be hindered with junk food, as with alcohol/fags will have major impacts on the peak you can hit at the highest levels, at the lowest levels the slowest jog will be affected. If you want your children to not be able to perform at their best activity and mentally wise, feed them junk food each day then you are abusing their human rights as a child who now has the inability to grow and perform at a healthy level.

Answer 4

No. This is absolutely ridiculous. The spoilt brats should eat what they are given. It is good that a school has taken an interest in children's welfare, which is more that can be said for the parents. If the children don't like the school food, it doesn't take long to make and pack a few sandwiches in the morning. Since the parents obviously have time (and money) to waste they could cook in the evening. One cooked meal a day is enough for anyone.

Answer 5

I don't think it is an attack on their human rights, and as for them not having rights until they are 18, WHAT PIFFLE!!!!

I think that the problem with children not eating healthily is down to the education provided to them by their peers, be it their parents, guardians or school.

It is far too easy now adays to put a kid into McD's etc and think that they are getting a staple diet.

On the other had, unlike our parents, most of us work and don't have time to prepare food as we would like to so it would be up to the schools to provide a nutritional lunch/dinner.

I am lucky in so far as I only have to work part-time, but there are plenty of single parents out there that don't have the luxury of a partner in the home to help them, or work part-time hours. Therefore I am able to provide a very balanced diet for my son.

The other thing we have to think about with the question being asked is WHAT ABOUT THE EFFECT THAT A NON-NUTRITIONAL DIET WILL HAVE ON OUR HEALTH SERVICE.

Does the questioner believe that if you are allowed to eat cr*p and suffer medical problems because of this, you are then entitled to all the medical help available?

Back to the old chestnut about self-infliction.

Answer 6

I believe that everything in moderation is how you should feed your children, feeding them junk food all the time and allowing your children to become obese is child abuse, you're killing them legally. Obese adults breed obese children generally. If children are brought up to eat most types of food they will acquire the taste for most foods, including lots of different types of vegetables. Adults who are obese and who's children are obese usually have the excuse they are "a big boned family", either that or the adults will use the excuse that they are fat through thyroid problems, not because they eat far too much crap. I'll ask you this, did we ever come across anyone with a thyroid problem in the concentration camps????? Did you ever see an obese person in one of those?? Wake up parents, don't inflict your unhealthy gluttonous greedy ways on your children, they're not born obese, you make them that way and you're a child abuser.

P.S Instead of being sat on your fat **** writing stupid questions and eating yourself stupid why don't you take your kids for a walk or a bike ride?

Answer 7

No, I watch what my kids eat in hopes that they stay fit, do not develop diabetes and high blood pressure at an early age.I am not attacking their rights. If I teach them now how to eat later hopefully they will grow to be healthy adults.
I do allow them to have treat that is junk food a couple of times a month but don't allow them to eat junk as a meal, nor all the time.

Answer 8

Wow - I'm stunned. I can not believe that there are mothers who would undermine their children's health in this manner. I watched the TV show about what Jamie Oliver is trying to accomplish in Britain and I hoped that he would come to America and help our schools. The number of asthma attacks went down in the schools over there, behavior problems also lessened after they switched to a real food program. Talk about bad parenting, those mothers should be ashamed of themselves. We're poisoning our children and when someone tries to help, they undermine his every move - sickening.

It's not the government's job to police someone's kitchen, but in school they have a responsibility to feed children a healthy meal. That doesn't mean that a parent can't bring their OWN child a different meal, but it's not right to undermine someone else's parenting. Obviously it's not an attack on kid's human rights to serve them a healthy meal in school. Also, if a kid gets sick on a meal that one of those parents puts through the fence, you know the school will be sued for not preventing it. If a kid wants to bring their lunch to school, that's their perogative, but getting it through the fence from a stranger could be dangerous.

Answer 9

An attack? No. A parent has parental responsibility (PR) of a child up until the age of 16. Therefore, the parent is responsible for the child's well being and welfare and should take appropriate measures in all aspects to ensure the child's health.

Answer 10

While I am appalled at the way those mothers behaved, no one likes being told what to do. I find Jamie Oliver's approach deeply patronising. I feed my children healthy, home cooked meals and don't need him to tell me how to do it.
My children have packed lunch. Why? Because I wasn't satisfied with the standard of the school meals. Long before Mr Oliver showed up. I have a decent education and can tell what is healthy. My kids are all a healthy weight - maybe a little too low. Maybe we need to educate parents more! Certainly any parent who feeds their child Red Bull should be imprisoned for neglect.