All I can do is shake my head. You see, Freiburg is my home town; I was born there and spent much of my youth there, including quite a few summers after I was transplanted to the USA at the tender age of 7-1/2. I used to miss it very much, but the last few times I've been back, it seemed it was not the city I remembered. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it didn't feel like I was coming home anymore.
epimetheus: "it is generally none of the state’s business what children (or adults) eat"
I'd be inclined to agree, but the only way you get the state out of such matters is by removing institutionalized school lunch entirely and having the parents pack lunch for their kids at home. Actually, I think this would be a good idea (some American schools handle it that way). Otherwise, whatever you choose to either offer or not offer is a political decision (and an economic one, too, of course). At a minimum, this should be an option (in lieu of mandatory school lunch fees).
But even then, you can expect problems. I don't know about Germany, but many schools in the United States have all but banned peanuts at school because so many children are allergic to them. A few years ago, there was even a story about some American school that banned children from one class from consuming peanuts *at home*, because one student was so badly allergic that, apparently, he (or was it a she?) could die if exposed to even just a few molecules of peanuts (which classmates might bring into the classroom on their clothes). Then there was an outcry, and I don't know what happened in the end. But yeah. Good luck depoliticizing school lunch.
School lunch is as you say politics; "the private is political"-demon being loose since the 1960s. There must be a halal option, a kosher option, a vegan option, a vegetarian option, and special food for kids with allergies, right? Otherwise it's unfair, isn't it?
Wrong. It's not. Allergic kids, if the allergy has been clinically proven can either be offered special food or their parents may receive a tax refund for the sum their kid's school lunches would cost.
As for the rest, while no-one is supposed to forbid you making a lifestyle choice such as islam or judaism or veganism, neither is anyone - especially not a state - compelled or bound to remove from you any on their own occurring negative consequences of said choice.
Indeed, a personal choice having consequences and costs is what brings worth to the act of choosing.
Or just do away with the whole thing, accepting the cost that will be that kids from [expletive deleted] parents won't get any lunch, with what that entails further down the line.
I don't quite understand your point. What's the problem with parents just packing their kids' lunch? If your kid isn't eating school lunch, why do you have to pay for it? Personally, I have a number of dietary restrictions, and I deal with that by - cooking from scratch, using the ingredients of my choice. Fancy that. What's wrong with parents doing that for their kids?
Because parents being abusive or neglectful means the kids will grow up the same, almost to a certainty. The risk for substance abuse, crime, wasted education and no vocational training go up, up, up when the parents don't do their job properly.
And the kids can't get their parents to shape up and make them lunch - instead you get the ones who just don't care at all and the kind who give the kid money to buy McFood. Every day.
That's the problem. Our nice principles of everyone paying for themselves have negative consequences, not just positive ones. So it becomes a choice of offering as much of a chance as we can to kids born into bad families, or putting our principles above the needs of those kids.
That's the trouble with all principles of choice and freedoms: those who manage fine under their own responsibility does so under all systems; those who don't comes off even worse when left without a leg up.
The point was to illustrate that it's not just about who pays regarding money, nor is it only about power politics - it's also about the very real impact on kids' health.
"The point was to illustrate that it's not just about who pays regarding money, nor is it only about power politics - it's also about the very real impact on kids' health."
Okay, I can see that. Yes, some kids would just go without lunch, though I guess those kids also go without lunch on weekends and school breaks. And if a child is obviously going hungry, then that's when teachers can call social services, right?
I still prefer giving people choice. Non-standard dietary choices (non-standard with respect to the majority culture) can be due to (1) personal/cultural/religious dietary restrictions, (2) health issues (not necessarily with a formal diagnosis: you can easily get a diagnosis for an allergy, but it's much trickier if it's "just" an intolerance that routinely messes up your digestion), or (3) the desire to give your child better quality food than the school has to offer. Take a look at the picture from the post. What's that? Fried meat and potatoes, with a microscopic dose of vegetables? Doesn't look much better than McDonald's to me.
For the Left everything that isn’t mandatory is forbidden.
All I can do is shake my head. You see, Freiburg is my home town; I was born there and spent much of my youth there, including quite a few summers after I was transplanted to the USA at the tender age of 7-1/2. I used to miss it very much, but the last few times I've been back, it seemed it was not the city I remembered. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it didn't feel like I was coming home anymore.
You will eat no meat and you will be happy!
Make sure the kids get fish, eggs in lieu of meat.
So... when will the Greens launch their campaign for sawdust-loafs?
Easy as it is to paint the Greens as the clinical idiots they are - the old saw about the fool and the ones who follow the fool seems to fit.
At some point, it becomes a virtuous duty to get rid of mad, bad and dangerous rulers.
This podcast regarding protein actually touches on the subject of school meals. You might find it interesting it’s by Dr. Peter Attia
and Dr. Don Layman
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5rZlffRoLoRtDJmu2dnaOo?si=ENBeFvxUTQikziKBYs3Z8A&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A63AWQmsSnFNFHUqnRAOFtD
Show notes if you don’t have Spotify (I believe he’s on multiple platforms)
https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/?utm_source=podcast-feed&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=220926-pod-donlayman&utm_content=220926-pod-donlayman-podfeed
epimetheus: "it is generally none of the state’s business what children (or adults) eat"
I'd be inclined to agree, but the only way you get the state out of such matters is by removing institutionalized school lunch entirely and having the parents pack lunch for their kids at home. Actually, I think this would be a good idea (some American schools handle it that way). Otherwise, whatever you choose to either offer or not offer is a political decision (and an economic one, too, of course). At a minimum, this should be an option (in lieu of mandatory school lunch fees).
But even then, you can expect problems. I don't know about Germany, but many schools in the United States have all but banned peanuts at school because so many children are allergic to them. A few years ago, there was even a story about some American school that banned children from one class from consuming peanuts *at home*, because one student was so badly allergic that, apparently, he (or was it a she?) could die if exposed to even just a few molecules of peanuts (which classmates might bring into the classroom on their clothes). Then there was an outcry, and I don't know what happened in the end. But yeah. Good luck depoliticizing school lunch.
I must second this and yet also oppose it.
School lunch is as you say politics; "the private is political"-demon being loose since the 1960s. There must be a halal option, a kosher option, a vegan option, a vegetarian option, and special food for kids with allergies, right? Otherwise it's unfair, isn't it?
Wrong. It's not. Allergic kids, if the allergy has been clinically proven can either be offered special food or their parents may receive a tax refund for the sum their kid's school lunches would cost.
As for the rest, while no-one is supposed to forbid you making a lifestyle choice such as islam or judaism or veganism, neither is anyone - especially not a state - compelled or bound to remove from you any on their own occurring negative consequences of said choice.
Indeed, a personal choice having consequences and costs is what brings worth to the act of choosing.
Or just do away with the whole thing, accepting the cost that will be that kids from [expletive deleted] parents won't get any lunch, with what that entails further down the line.
I don't quite understand your point. What's the problem with parents just packing their kids' lunch? If your kid isn't eating school lunch, why do you have to pay for it? Personally, I have a number of dietary restrictions, and I deal with that by - cooking from scratch, using the ingredients of my choice. Fancy that. What's wrong with parents doing that for their kids?
Because parents being abusive or neglectful means the kids will grow up the same, almost to a certainty. The risk for substance abuse, crime, wasted education and no vocational training go up, up, up when the parents don't do their job properly.
And the kids can't get their parents to shape up and make them lunch - instead you get the ones who just don't care at all and the kind who give the kid money to buy McFood. Every day.
That's the problem. Our nice principles of everyone paying for themselves have negative consequences, not just positive ones. So it becomes a choice of offering as much of a chance as we can to kids born into bad families, or putting our principles above the needs of those kids.
That's the trouble with all principles of choice and freedoms: those who manage fine under their own responsibility does so under all systems; those who don't comes off even worse when left without a leg up.
The point was to illustrate that it's not just about who pays regarding money, nor is it only about power politics - it's also about the very real impact on kids' health.
"The point was to illustrate that it's not just about who pays regarding money, nor is it only about power politics - it's also about the very real impact on kids' health."
Okay, I can see that. Yes, some kids would just go without lunch, though I guess those kids also go without lunch on weekends and school breaks. And if a child is obviously going hungry, then that's when teachers can call social services, right?
I still prefer giving people choice. Non-standard dietary choices (non-standard with respect to the majority culture) can be due to (1) personal/cultural/religious dietary restrictions, (2) health issues (not necessarily with a formal diagnosis: you can easily get a diagnosis for an allergy, but it's much trickier if it's "just" an intolerance that routinely messes up your digestion), or (3) the desire to give your child better quality food than the school has to offer. Take a look at the picture from the post. What's that? Fried meat and potatoes, with a microscopic dose of vegetables? Doesn't look much better than McDonald's to me.