Tolley terminates food police
February 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm by David FarrarYay. This release just out from Anne Tolley:
Schools will no longer be required to act as food police under changes announced by Education Minister Anne Tolley today.
“As part of the National Government’s commitment to reducing compliance for schools, I have decided to remove the clause in National Administration Guideline (5) which states ‘where food and beverages are sold on schools’ premises, to make only healthy options available’.
“Feedback from schools I have spoken to suggests that this clause has created confusion for many of them particularly around fundraising and school events. The government considers regulation in this area unnecessary.
“I believe boards of trustees should be able to make their own decisions about appropriate food and drink options. After all, they are parents who should be aware of what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods are. I am confident they will act responsibly.
Oh my God, you can’t trust parents. It is the Government’s job to decide what can be sold to their kids at school. Or at least it used to be.
“It should be noted that clause (ii) in the National Administration Guideline (5) that requires schools to promote healthy food and drink to students remains in place.
“I am aware of the great work that the majority of schools have already done in this area to ensure their students can make informed decisions about what they eat and drink as part of a healthy and balanced lifestyle.
Labour never got the difference between promote and control. It is one thing to promote healthy food. It is quite another to ban food you disapprove of as unhealthy.
“This change will help schools to concentrate on core business – providing students with a quality education and learning environment and concentrating on improving education standards.”
That would be good.
This is a small issue, but a symbolically important one.
Related posts:
- Greens still mourning loss of food police
- NZEI says Tolley should have attended US conference, not dealt with earthquake
- Sounds worthwhile
- Principals attack food police
February 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“It’s a small issue, but a symbolically important one” Brilliant! Now fatty stodge and pumped up sugary shit is available to school children, famous for their decision making abilities when it comes to choosing healthy food. More and more brilliant by the day, that Anne (off her trolley) Tolley! There is no obesity amongst New Zealand children – who’d have thought it! Let’m choose their own poison, Anne! You’re a clever lass.
[DPF: As expected hysteria from the Greens. No one has said there is no obesity. What they have said it is not the places of schools to be the food police. That is the role of parents]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Wow, didnt take long for the commies to get upset about this did it fruitfly? I love the way you guys so earnestly believe that:
a) You know better than everyone else
b) most parents cannot control their kids without governmental suprvision
As disconcerting as it may seem Harvey, moves like this are what the people of NZ voted for last year. For the next three years at least, you and the rest of the green party, and labour as well, are but static on the dial.
Vote:G
February 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
And Greenfly … that’s why the Greens will NEVER be in Government. Thought freaks, Control freaks. We know best, we will make your decisions for you and you better obey or we’ll kick your doors down … showers, food, TV, medicines, etc etc etc. A Stalinist paradise here in Kiwiland.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I am really enjoying this government!
A few days ago a responsible economic passage to help small businesses. Not a massive spend up of taxpayers money and then increasing taxes to pay for it. Instead a government that is trying to ease the burden of government compliance to help the hard-working small business owner. Excellent!
Now schools can decide for themselves what they sell at the tuckshop. Schools being trusted to make decisions for themselves rather than everything being dictated from Wellington? A novel idea — but a good one.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
DPF – “It is one thing to promote healthy food. It is quite another to ban food you disapprove of as unhealthy.”
Smoking is banned for children at school, is it not? Will Tolley seek to have that restriction lifted as well? Sell cigarettes at the tuck shop, but have lessons on how healthy it is not to smoke them. Nice logic Mr Farrar and Ms Tolley. Schools are de facto parents to the children during the day and should act accordingly. Will Tolley’s next move be to remove the parents rights to choose healthy food for their children, because ‘the children must choose”?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Awesome.
Now if they could just cut the budget by $10 billion the country might be able to lift its game.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
What they have said it is not the places of schools to be the food police. That is the role of parents
And how are they doing?
[DPF: Pretty damn good in the most part. And those families who are not doing so well, can be assisted on an individual basis]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
That’s just it though Grant. They do believe they know better than everyone else. They are the saviours of this rotting world, they are the worlds last chance at survival, the world rests on their shoulders…or so they believe.
I always wonder if people like Greenfly need their hand held through life also, maybe drug tests once a week? We all know Marijuana causes people to eat more than they should and promotes a life on the couch playing play station instead of exercise.
What do you say Greenfly, drug tests on green party supporters? Maybe legislation is required. You could all wear little weed symbols on your shirts so we all know who these “unhealthy” people are that put a strain on the health sector? It’s for the greater good remember? Or you could just be left alone to make your own decision. What would you like?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Nice logic, Greenfly. Let’s go with your idea of simply banning whats bad. Motors cars kill 400 people a year in accidents and x00 a year with pollution and warm the globe to boot. Ban them? 20 people a year die of electrocution. Ban electricity? Hundreds around the world die every year in plane crashes. Ban those too?
People breath poisonous CO2. Ban them too.
Your own logic Greenfly makes you a hypocrite just for breathing.
[DPF: I'd like to ban people who want to ban things]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Greenfly, you are best suited to a full blown Communist State.
We don’t need no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
One day you will realise that people react very well to responsibility.
Normal folk detest being regulated in their own homes, and you just don’t understand personal independence.
Why do you lot seem to think that you have all the answers?
Shower pressures. What is NZ short of water?
Understand if it was the arrid parts of Oz.
You project, smug, self satisfied, over educated, controlling, pious, and high maintenance!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Here’s that quote from Milton Friedman again: “What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will.” He had people like Greenfly in mind when he wrote that, I imagine.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Where would the schools be “telling parents” whats healthy.
The schools last time I checked are owned by the goverment, so if the schools want to tell the pupils to wear uniforms, turn up on time or else or the myriad of minor regulations that make the place function, amoung them selling ONLY healthy food on premises.
What has it got to do with telling parents, or maybe the big donations from Coca Cola has helped national decide to make a shallow gesture that wont change anything
[DPF: Again you miss the point. An individual school can ban junk food if they want. Just as they can decide on school uniforms, set period and break times. But this was about nanny state instructing all schools - totally different. And please see a doctor over your paranoia re donations from Coke]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
We are to take it then that there are no overweight children in New Zealand? Wonderful. All that concern over the cost we were to face 20 or 30 years down the track from diabetes etc. has vanished like a puff of cigarette smoke. What a relief! No one, it seems, need do anything. The hungry little mites are going to make the good decision to eat well all by themselves (just as they apparently are now!) There is no need to restrict their choice, because they have proved themselves responsible. But wait, no, there is something being done – education programmes in schools to teach children how to make good choices! Splendid! That’ll do it! You righties are a tad naive! Have another Chardonay, chaps and think about how effective that will be. Think, ‘Let’s not ban smoking in pubs either. Let’s run a series of ads on television – that’ll work!! Impressive work boys!
[DPF: You really don't get it. A different planet. It is the role of parents to look after the diets of their children, not the fucking Green Party. Plus the ban was a pathetic sop gesture that wouldn't achieve anything as kids can still go to dairies, but off their mates. Plus the policy was typical lowest common denominator. In an attempt to stop fat Jack have a mince pie, you also ban Trim Jim who captains the First XV from having a pie for energy after an hour of training.]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
DPF said “This is a small issue, but a symbolically important one.”
I disgaree DPF – it’s not a small issue at all – telling schools to focus on the core business of educating our children is the single most important thing that the Education Minister could be doing.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Glutaemus maximus said: “One day you will realise that people react very well to responsibility”
Vote:Isn’t that what we have now? Don’t we also have an obesity problem amongst our children – a growing problem?
Why isn’t your theory working, eh, glute?
February 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Oh good work Greenfly. Thanks to legislation in schools regarding tuck shop meals, there will never be overweight children again. Hoorah! Well done old chap, you saved the world….again! God you guys are good. Oh, hang on…
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
DFP – your ‘argument’ is feeble. You cite the First XV captain as unable to ‘have a pie’, but in the same breath say that ‘kids can still go off to the dairys’ (is your captain incapable of that?). It is indeed the role of parents to look after their kids diet, but when the children are at school, how will the parents ensure that their kids aren’t seduced by poor food being offered, dirt cheap, at the school canteen. You can’t, and if you don’t believe that this is what happens, I suggest you get out and spend some time at some canteens and see for yourself! In this case, the school has a responsibility (or do you think it is the responsibility of the canteen operator – har bloody har!). Should the school sit back and say ‘free for all’? No. Should the State. No. But you say, Yes. Fools.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Greenfly, it is so obvious. They are rebelling against needless Governmental Interference.
They were all thin before you started worrying folk about obesity.
It is called ‘comfort eating’
In fact, you guys have caused all the problems in the World due to your obsessive controlling fantasies!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Harvey Fly, I get it now.
Vote:The green party felt that legislating school tuck shop menus would stop childhood obesity the same way that their S59 amendment stopped children being murdered.
As I said, static on the dial.
G
February 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Greens want to ban everything that is even slightly bad for you. Except weed, which is known to be bad for you but the Greens want to un-ban.
Which is the sort of policy contradiction you get when you’re stoned.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Greenfly: The theory isn’t working because morons like yourself have taken away “personal responsibility” from these children. For years now the kids “myself included” were told by leftist teachers that it is not our fault we did what we did, it was someone else’s fault for not legislating against it. Its the blameless society leftists have created in New Zealand. Oh it wasn’t Jim’s fault he is a fat bastard, it was those damn capitalist arseholes at McDonald’s. Oh, no it wasn’t Robs fault he put that other guy in hospital, his parents smacked him. Oh, no it wasn’t Tammy’s fault she got addicted to methamphetamine…..and so on and so on.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Greenfly
I will offer to pay for my own health care costs if you promise me that the government will stop stealing a third of my pay packet before i even get a cent and let me choose what food i can eat and what lawful recreation i can partake in.
Vote:This way you don’t have to worry about the cost i will inflict on the public health care system, i would even be so generous as to pay for my childrens health care as well.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
My final word on greenfly ……
greenfly = aphid = pestilent sap sucker
Yep, that sounds exactly right.
)
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Greenfly, school boards remain perfectly capable of setting a policy for the foods on offer at their school. Its just that now they can choose not to. So what’s the problem?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Why argue or debate the issue with Greenfly?
The rules have changed and 93% of the public are happy with it.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Couple of points.
First, let us look at what the Minister has actually done. She has removed one clause from the guidelines which said “where food and beverages are sold on schools’ premises, to make only healthy options available”.
The PARENTS on the school Board will now decide what to sell at schools. All that has happened is that the decision-making power has been moved from the Minister (where the previous incumbent decided that only ill-defined “healthy” food could be sold) to individual Boards. It is still perfectly possible that all Board’s will decide only to sell “healthy” food all the time. Or some might say that most of the time we will sell sandwiches and juice, but on Fridays we will sell pies and hotdogs as well.
So this action of the Ministers is about who should have the decision rights: the Ministers (acting on the advice of officials and the lobbying of political parties represented in Parliament and all the others wanting to have a say) or individual school boards (acting on the input from other parents, the principal and staff, the students and anyone else who wants to have a say at the local level).
Second: freedom to do the things you value is the mark of a civilised society.
I firmly and passionately believe that ADULTS of sound mind should have the right to live the lives that they value, PROVIDED THAT IN DOING SO THEY DO NOT HARM OTHERS.
Exercising this freedom will, at times, maybe even most of the time, result in individuals harming themselves. Fine. If someone wants to smoke at home and kill themselves prematurely, fine. If they want to smoke in a restaurant and kill me prematurely, not fine.
If someone wants to climb a dangerous mountain and risk death, fine. If they want others to put their lives at risk and rescue them if they get into trouble, then they must accept restrictions on their activities.
So let’s not debate whether things are harmful or not. Let’s debate liberty.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Ben. You just pin pointed the problem.
Maybe the greens should have thought about National as an option
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Banana Llama – you have my word.
Vote:big bruv – exactly!
medusa – you make fun of my name !!
DFP – as usual, your posts on issues around the Greens produced plenty of heat and smoke
I’m back to work, now that I’ve polished off my mutton pie and scoffed a can of Red Bull!
Keep it up Tolley! You’re a clot!
February 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
btw georgebolwing – you say, “The PARENTS on the school Board will now decide what to sell at schools.”
Vote:Somebody elses parents will decide for my daughter?
Bugger that!
February 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Greenfly
I am about to ignore my own advice but can you answer this question.
Why is it that you (the Greens) think they can look after our kids better than we can?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
greenfly
Can you please post your contact details in this thread so that all people who have children can email you with their weekly meal planners. It would be great if you could personally take responsibility for approving and/or amending people’s meal planners as appropriate. Additionally you could do the same for exercise & sleep timetables.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Are people in government sometimes not parents too, Cabbage Moth? So you’re saying parents on the board of your daughter’s school shouldn’t have a say on what happens there, but parents in the green and labour parties, should?
Vote:G
February 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Greenfly – if you don’t like what someone elses parents are suggesting is sold at the tuck shop then run for the school board and have some influence in our democratic process. But wait – the greens don’t want democracy.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Greenfly
Boards are elected. Stand for office and have a say.
Or move schools to one that fits your values better.
Or you could talk to your daughter about what she can or can’t buy at the tuck-shop.
Or you could always make her lunch.
You have the liberty to make choices. Celebrate that you can lead the life that you value. And that I can lead the one that I value and that they might be different.
[DPF: The Greens see choice as a bad thing, as they disapprove of some of the choice people make. They are in reality the most authoritarian party in Parliament]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
My eight year old will be thrilled. The tuck-shop at his school closed when it could sell enough ‘healty food’ to stay viable. It was a source of bitter resentment for him.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
What a great thread!
Haven’t laughed so hard at a mauling for a-a-ages.
Thanks greenfly. You’ve made my day.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
btw georgebolwing – you say, “The PARENTS on the school Board will now decide what to sell at schools.”
Somebody elses parents will decide for my daughter?
Bugger that!
Greenfly. If you’re against other parents deciding what your daughter eats then how on earth does it follow that a minister who has never met and will never know your daughter’s preferences and circumstances should decide?
What’s your argument here? That your political party should have control, damn the reasoning or consequences?
Georgebolwing, I like what you’re saying.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hang on a second. Is Greenfly upset about taxes being wasted in the health sector, or that he doesnt have control?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Will Tolley’s next move be to remove the parents rights to choose healthy food for their children, because ‘the children must choose”?”
The thinking of a complete imbecile. People like this support the Green Party. Luddites to the hilt!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
At work now (but can’t resist)
Vote:Ben – If you are against the government dictating what can be sold in a tuck shop, why do your support a ‘board of governers’ (trustees) doing the same thing? I’d appreciate a straight answer from you. Everyone else here has ranted and raved, but not addressed my points.
Getstaffed – you are very welcome – it’s been a hoot!
February 5th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Is Greenfly upset about taxes being wasted in the health sector, or that he doesnt have control?”
Since when have the likes of Greenblowfly ever been concerned about taxes being wasted??? With leftists, control is always paramount.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Seems that Gerry Brownlee and Judith Collins must ahve more influence in the National Cabinet that Parekura Horomia had in the Labour one!
DPF said: Oh my God, you can’t trust parents. So do you expect parents to be hanging around their kid’s school’s tuckshop at lunchtime checking up on what they are buying?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
greenfly – we support a board of trustees process as they are part of the community and closer to the parents and the school.
Vote:The government is too far removed.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
WRONG WRONG WRONG. Schools are there to teach literacy, numeracy and general knowledge. They are not de facto parents. You lefties just don’t get it. This change in policy is leaving it up to teh school boards to decide what to sell in their tuck shops, not the government. Greenfly – do you think school boards are incapable of making ANY decisions on their own?
one last comment. As Michael Cullen so eloquently said “We won, You Lost. Eat it” But not presumably if it is a pie.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The reason why I am against the government dictating what can be sold in a tuck shop, but support the board of trustees doing the same thing, is because I support individual decision-making over centralised decision-making.
People are different. Schools are different. Local decision-making allows those differences to be expressed in the decisions made.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Greenfly.
Who is the board of trustees made up off? Do you believe they are needed? If so, why?
Redbaiter, Of course it is all about power and control. They dont have kids, but are brilliant parents.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
burt said “greenfly
Can you please post your contact details in this thread so that all people who have children can email you with their weekly meal planners. It would be great if you could personally take responsibility for approving and/or amending people’s meal planners as appropriate. Additionally you could do the same for exercise & sleep timetables.”
Nice one burt – I think that’s a slam-dunk!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Toad:
I always ask my kids what they are buying for lunch at school. And I expect them to tell me the thruth.
It’s called being a responsible parent.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“So do you expect parents to be hanging around their kid’s school’s tuck shop at lunchtime checking up on what they are buying?”
No i expect parents to inform their children on what is good for them and let them make their own choices, hey…they might even learn from their own mistakes.
Whose money is it that they are using? Does the left also seek to control what children can buy with their own money?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“I have decided to remove the clause in National Administration Guideline (5) which states ‘where food and beverages are sold on schools’ premises, to make only healthy options available’.”
Remove a NAG?! Remove a regulatory requirement?! Remove??! And not replace it with at least two more?! What?!
Vote:but…but..but…a whole generation have been raised expecting more regulation. What are they supposed to do? Use their own judgment?! Be responsible for themselves?!
ohhh..I feel dizzy, I’m in shock, I shouldn’t have skipped lunch. I need a bacon sandwich.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
georgebolwing said: The reason why I am against the government dictating what can be sold in a tuck shop, but support the board of trustees doing the same thing, is because I support individual decision-making over centralised decision-making.
I presume, on that basis, you oppose the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act George, because they move in the opposite direction to that which you advocate here.
[DPF: Not at all. Individual decision making is people better able to decide what they do on their own property]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Well Duh! Lemme see……ummmm….yes they do.
Sorry S7G – just had to.
I make my daughter’s lunch every day except the day that she buys her lunch. She can have what she wants on that day but usually picks something like a wrap or panini. Sometimes she has chips. Greenfly – fuck off and decide what you feed your own kids and let me decide what mine eat.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Greenfly, I haven’t said I do support that, I was merely pointing out your own inconsistency. But giving the board of schools control over what they sell in their school is consistent with property rights and with freedom of choice, and those are valuable for the following reason: parents concerned that the board of their school is getting it wrong (on food or any other policy) can move their child to a school whose board sets rules they like. Government rules that force all schools to follow certain procedures take away that choice, and there is no protection for individuals against bad decisions.
Choice, as always, allows individuals to protect themselves from bad decisions and rewards individuals (and boards) making good decisions.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
As David notes, individual decision-making is people deciding what they do on their own property. But, this must always be tempered by the requirement that their actions do not harm others. In the context of the RMA, the definition of “harm” is difficult, as is “others”.
A local council and local citizens holding-up a project that will have great benefits to the rest of the country might be an example of an action that should not be allowed.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Inventory2 and burt – I’d be happy to. Just post your lists here and I’ll sort it out for you. My sons and daughter have grown up fit and well, so I have had experience in the field.
Vote:George – Toad beat me to it but you must see the contradiction in what you are saying and what the NActs have just done with the RMA. Feeling empowered as an individual wanting to exercise your rights are you?
George Smaller – please do some background work. Start by looking up loco parentis
sector7g – yes, I’m a supporter of boards, as I am a supporter of governments. Why do you respect one, but not the other when it conmes to decision making? If you like the idea of ‘local control for local issues’ the recent changes to the RMA should have you dashing for your keyboard.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Greenfly – i don’t get you. You say your kids have grown up fit and well. Presumably because YOU fed them the right stuff and made decision about what they ate. Please tell us why that qualifies you to tell me what MY kids eat. Advise perhaps, but not dictate.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
ben said: “Government rules that force all schools to follow certain procedures take away that choice”
Vote:Jesus ben! Is Tolley going to remove all government ‘school rules’ because that removes ‘choice’?
Perhaps schools such as Kurakaupapa be able to decide every aspect of school life? Muslim schools, ben? Fundamental Christian schools? Whoopee-doo! Here we go!
February 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Greenfly: am glad that you have seen a contradiction between what I am saying and the Government’s policies.
I fear that this government generally does not support liberty. They tend to be conservatives (in the British, lower-case c, meaning of the word), wanting to preserve the status quo, whatever it might be. They also seem to want to perfect socialism, rather than dismantle it.
Ms Tolley’s actions one, rare, example of liberty being promoted.
On the RMA, my rights are to do as I please to myself and with my property, without harming others.
If the RMA limits my ability to harm others, then it is to be supported. If the proposed changes increase my ability to harm others, then it should be opposed.
As always, it is defining the details of what is “harm” and who are “others” that is the hard part.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Brian Smaller – Do I ‘dictate’ ?- I wouldn’t have said so, after all, I’m powerless and small. It was burt who suggested that I fill this role and I took his advice. I surrounded my kids with excellent food choices (you should see our vege garden!!), never ranted and demanded that they eat well, always had the cupboards full of good food, subtly avoided the fast food barns, led by example and didn’t spaz out when they ate crap food.I’d like to see the schools follow a similar pattern. No need to dictate, just cleverly set the environment for a healthy result. THAT’S what the Greens had in mind, I’m sure. I’m betting there would have been little if any change in that direction if someone in an influential position hadn’t drawn a line in the sand. Tolley’s action and the frothy support she’s getting here is dozy, no matter how rabidly the detractors swarm, I’m not moved. Dissapointed though, that you ‘don’t get me’.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
A surprising piece of sensibility from the National Socialist Party
I am confident they [parents] will act responsibly.
National should extend their touching trust in parents to repealing that anti-smacking law. I very much doubt that that will happen, because John Key has already shown his totalitarianism and utter arrogance in that regard:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/john-key-shows-his-arrogance/
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It will be quite interesting to see what effect this has on obesity and health issues amongst our youth.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
There’s bound to be a noticable improvement in the health of our young people, now that they can choose what to buy from the tuck shops at school. The trend towards obesity, diabetes and tooth decay in children will swing significantly to the positive, now that there are no national guidelines for school tuckshops and the fears that the medical fraternity has held for the future of our children will be dismissed. The ‘junk food’ producers, with their sugared up, caffein-laden products won’t be celebrating tonight, because children will choose not to buy their psuedo-foods, because their parents and the school will expect them to make good choices. Tui right there.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Who cares what choice they make?
Vote:How often do kids buy their lunch?
February 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Thanks everyone for the lively debate.
Long may democracy’s raucous squawk be heard here on Kiwiblog.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Wow,,
I suddenly feel a surge of right wing fuzzy wuzzies all over.
We really do have a different govt in charge.
I feel so clean and pure and refreshingly effervesant.
Now, what did Michelle Obama say about Americans again?
I feel very patriotic as well
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@Sector 7g-
Vote:Exactly who cares about what choice they make, it is not as if this will have any effect on obesity levels, general health, behaviour in the classroom and the learning environment in general. Next we should allow them to consume alcohol on school grounds, I mean how dare the state try and limit what they do or don’t buy/consume on school grounds. This is strictly for the parents and the students themselves.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
georgebolwing said: As David notes, individual decision-making is people deciding what they do on their own property.
And DPF inserted similar comment to in response to my comment.
Since when has a school property been the property of an individual parent? And a school Board of Trustees bears far more similarities to a territorial authority than it does to the family trust or company that owns what you call “my property”.
Okay, sorry, that might be going to far. Some of you will have titles in your own name, and I’ll also acknowledge some Greens do have family trusts or companies to minimise their tax liability.
But I think the point still stands – state schools are public property, and Boards of Trustees are, like territorial authorities, a subordinate level of governance.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Choice! Trying to protect kids from greasy shit that could ruin their lives is SO pc.
The tuck shops should be selling smokes to the senior kids too.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Many, many times on this blog I’ve seen the question posed, “Who are schools for?” and a flurry of concerned righties always answer, “The children, the children” Can someone (anyone) tell me how this ‘tolley’ of a decision will benefit ‘the children’. Come on then, show us what you’ve got!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Ratbiter said: The tuck shops should be selling smokes to the senior kids too.
Not just tobacco Ratbiter. Following the logic on much of this thread: piss, dak, smack, coke and P should be available through the school tuckshop too.
You know, to help the kids who are bored or overtired through those difficult afternoons!
It is all the parents’ choice, and they should trust their kids will spend their money wisely at the school tuckshop and not lie to them about what they have bought.
I feel a Tui ad coming on.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Greenfly – I repeat my response to DPF earlier:
“telling schools to focus on the core business of educating our children is the single most important thing that the Education Minister could be doing.”
The food issue is secondary to the message that the Minister is sending schools – stick to education, and don’t get bogged down in all the peripheral stuff. For one who works in the education sector, this is music to the ears.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Toad:
My comment “As David notes, individual decision-making is people deciding what they do on their own property” was in relation to your comment about whether I supported the changes to the RMA. I wasn’t suggesting that school’s were my property.
Greenfly:
Right back to my first post: all Ms Tolley has done is move the decision-making from the central level to the schools. She has not made the selling of anything compulsory. She simply allows schools to make the decision.
I suspect that the vast majority of schools will make good decisions, based on their school’s experiences and needs.
The important point to me is that they now have the opportunity to do so, rather than having a rule dictated from the centre.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
You lefty troglodytes assume parents have no control in preventing obesity amongst their offspring.
“The tuckshop, the tuckshop, won’t anyone think of the tuckshop???”
And the dairys, fast food joints, supermarkets et al of this world?
“Yeah, well they’re next on our list. An under16/18 ban should do the trick”
A ban on what exactly?
“10 grams fat or sugar per 100gms. We realise there’s no science that dictates an arbitrary level but that’s never stopped us before”.
So adults don’t make bad food choices?
Vote:“Yes, they do but… ahh…no actually we’ve decided that high calorie food is as damaging as tobacco. It will be banned under a Green-led government, unless it’s organic. Pass me that spliff would ya?”
February 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Toads and Greenies,
Vote:The school tuckshop is a relatively innocuous place to learn about making the right choices in the face of temptation. You might argue that there should be more healthy choices available to the kids and more education on eating, but the lesson of personal responsibility is most important for the kid’s future health. In fact, tuckshops should deliberately make bad choices available as part of the learning experience.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I don’t know why you buggers bother argueing with the likes of Greenfly. You will never, ever, as long as your arse points down, get through to someone with a narsicistic personality disorder.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
One could argue that the very reason we have so many fat kids these days is because of the socialists and lefties, when I was at school (late 70′s early 80′s) we had plenty of “shit food” in the tuck shop and a fish and chip shop over the road that did a roaring trade yet there were bugger all fat kids out of a school role in excess of 1000 lads.
The reasons we did not have an epidemic of fat bastards was because each and every kid at that school was made to play sport, we also had a PE class every day of the week, as a result it did not matter what shit food we ate because we burnt it off.
Vote:It was only when the pinko’s took over the teachers union and teaching profession that the emphasis on physical activity dropped away, teachers could no longer be pressured into coaching a sports team by the headmaster and as such the opportunities for the kids dropped away, the result is huge numbers of fat lazy kids.
February 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
toad
Here is your Tui add. ‘Banning alcohol stops people drinking’.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
big bruv
I have been thinking the same thoughts. We always had F&C’s on Friday and probably pies and custard squares at least one or two other days a week. My generation is a lot less obese than today’s generation. Many kids at my school ate like that – always. Kids were made to work hard in PE, if there was a slow running in the class the whole class wasn’t made to run slow so as to be inclusive.
We have allowed our kids to become soft so the ‘fatty’ foods are stacking on our waist lines, making it even harder to exercise. Banning the bad foods in one or two locations is not the answer.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
burt said: toad Here is your Tui add. ‘Banning alcohol stops people drinking’.
First sensible thing you’ve said all day burt (unless I’ve missed something!)
Just like banning dak stops people getting stoned.
I’m a bit more ambivalent about the legal response to hard stuff like smack and P. But certainly for the drugs with a lower harm causation, I think banning them is just stupid – huge funds for the gangs that distribute them but criminal convictions for the (maybe one-time) users who get caught with them in their possession.
But, whatever the substance, I still think substance dependency should be dealt with primarily as a medical, rather than criminal, issue.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Greenfly, you have so many contradictions, it’s hard to figure out what you stand for. I think you like to be the devil’s advocate. I was watching Jamie Oliver on TV and he was traveling through Italy. He wanted to learn the local way of cooking and it varied in each town. Italians are good cooks, I know, my grandmother was from Florence and she made the best dinners I have ever tasted. Anyway, there was a school that decided to cook meals for their children. There was also a Mcdonald’s down the street. Guess what? The Mcdonalds WENT OUT OF BUSINESS!! I have never heard of that before. It was the choice of the schools and the results are very good. The kids are healthy but also, they learn the power of choice!!!! You greens only think what you think is good is good for everyone. Another example, It’s off the subject but you greens screamed that National pulled the ads “buy New Zealand” because it was costing 8 million. You felt it was un Kiwi to pull that ad. Sue Bradford was on TV trying to justify that ad. She was going by what she THOUGHT but when the ad was tested for its results, it proved not to do that well. National pulled the ad saving taxpayers money. Sue Bradford just winged about how that ad will help New Zealand grow. I think the greens should stick to the whales. I like to see Fitzsimons out there on those rubber boats putting herself at risk.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
toad
I cannot agree with your stance on drugs, its all well and good to say that you want it legalised to stop the gangs etc but by legalising it you then create thousands of new users, thousands of new addicts and we the bloody tax payer will be expected by the likes of you and the Greens to pay for their rehabilitation.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
toad
Sugar might be classified as a substance some people are addicted to. There is growing recognition of the addictive qualities of sugar and it’s immediate gratification effects. So what next, ban all products with sugar from schools?
Look when it comes to drugs it’s complex, you know that only fringe whack-jobs think immediately legalising all drugs will stop people using them. As a society, if we treated drugs as a medical problem, drug use would change irrespective of prohibition legislation de-jour. Pies are the same… Lets not politicise the issue anymore than we need to. I have resisted using the term ‘Nanny state’ throughout this discussion to describe the previous situation where it was banned. The stupidity of the ban is astounding – as it was for BZP. I wonder what new drug the youngens are chucking down their throats tonight. I guess they are also wondering the same.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
big bruv
How many teenagers are attracted to something because it is banned, illegal, wrong or will simply piss their parents off?
Being illegal could be having the wrong effect on the demographic where usage is most damaging.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
burt
“How many teenagers are attracted to something because it is banned, illegal, wrong or will simply piss their parents off?”
Heaps I suspect, its one of the reasons I became a smoker however that is not the issue.
Ciggies are bad for you and will kill at least 50% of the people who use them, what they do NOT do is alter your mental state or become ineffective after prolonged use, its not as if most smokers move onto smoking cigars just to get a bigger “hit” is it.
I know far to many bright smart kids who turned out to be dead beats and drop kicks because they wasted ten or so years smoking weed, I also knew more than I wanted to who moved from grass to harder shit and ended up diving from the top of Wellington car parks and office blocks in the stupid belief that they could fly.
Those pushing the “legalise it” barrow are mostly the same idealogical idiots who thought that caring for the mentally ill in the community was a good idea, it makes them feel good as they are not the poor bastards who have to clean up the mess at the other end.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
big bruv said: It was only when the pinko’s took over the teachers union and teaching profession that the emphasis on physical activity dropped away, teachers could no longer be pressured into coaching a sports team by the headmaster and as such the opportunities for the kids dropped away, the result is huge numbers of fat lazy kids.
Yep, for once I agree with you bruv (not with the pinkos bit, but with the theme of the comment).
I was a lazy kid who thought bowling spin was cool, because I could (sometimes) take wickets off 7 paces. And I liked to field at slip, even though I was a bit of a bumblefingers with close catches (later discovered it was an eyesight problem).
My school cricket coach sorted all that out – I got a stern message that if I were to stay in the 1st XI I was expected to open the bowling at the best pace I could manage and field at fine leg or mid-on where I had to do rather more running than I would have preferred.
Yep, 30 something years on, I sometimes wished I’d stuck with the spin off 7 paces (left arm wrist, which hardly any batsman in NZ had ever seen), and fielding at slip. The first of these, at least, I was reasonably good at as a schoolboy.
I might have progessed further than club cricket persisting with that. But I might have also ended up with a physique like Shane Warne or Ajuna Ranatunga and still never played for a NZ provincial team, let alone for New Zealand.
So, in retrospect, I’m actually glad I was expected to improve my physical fitness to stay in the school 1st XI, even though I I never progressed much further in cricket.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Waiter!!!
There’s a Greenfly in my Tuckshop!
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
burt said: The stupidity of the ban is astounding – as it was for BZP.
Burt, the difference is that junk food was just banned form school tuckshops, not universally. BZP is not only banned, but its possession and distribution is now criminalised.
Which is bizarre, because BZP is a shit drug anyway, If E were legalised (and, to my knowledge, no-one has ever committed a crime of violence on that drug – it just makes people love everyone) no-one would be interested in using BZP. Actually, a lot fewer people would be interested in using alcohol too, which has far greater harm potential than E.
So the Misuse of Drugs schedules are all fucked up. If it is to be an effective law, it should categorsie drugs according to their harm potential. Sure, P should be at the top of the list where it is, and I think should be totally prohibited, but much of the rest of the scheduling bears no relationship to the actual harm caused by the drugs concerned.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Toad
Your 1st XI coach should be shot!
What he should have done is kept you bowling left arm leggies and made you run around the field five times after practice to keep the weight off, far to many good prospects have been turned into medium paced pie chuckers because of coaches like him, if a kid can spin the ball or bowl at a reasonably quick pace then that is what they should be made to continue doing, nothing boils my cricketing blood more than a coach telling a young genuine quick to slow down and bowl “line and length” or hearing a young spinner told to “bowl straight”, a good coach would say “get it to the other end as quick as you can and worry about the line and length later on” or “just give the bloody ball a good rip son”
The coaching thing is sad, when I was at school the teachers used to fight to be coach of the first XV or cricket XI, now they have to bring in outside coaches for both jobs as the teachers cannot be bothered doing the job.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I have scrolled through most of the comments on this blog so please correct if I am out of order. I was at primary school in the mid 60′s to early 70′s. We ate pies, coffee buns, chips, and doughnuts. I am now 46, I am not obese and neither are any of the friends I had at school who I am still in contact with. The difference between us and today’s lot is that we exercised as kids, teens, 20′s, 30′s and God help me 40′s (although it hurts a lot these days). So Greenfly, ban playstations, recreational computer games, and all the other crap that plants kids on their arse when they should be outside exercising. Otherwise STFU.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Murray M.
Coffee buns and apple turnovers. Excellent to chase down a pie before a crushing game of bullrush.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Inventory2 – sorry to have missed your comment (and others) I was in the city accompanying my daughter to a night class (we ate out – Subway
Vote:You want schools to focus on core issues, not ‘peripherals’ – bit of a 3 R’s man are you? How peripheral is attendence? Shouldn’t students have the choice of whether they attend or not or will you take that choice away from them with a Stae sanction, such as the insubstantial Mrs Tolley has done. Surely you wouldn’t rob them of the opportunity to learn for themselves that attendence is the right path to take, just as choosing the healthy food from the canteen is the better way? You righteous commentators are sooooo hypocritical. No one has addressed my question of 6:55 pm yet, as I expected.
HOW WILL CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM HAVING CRAP FOOD ON THE MENUE? The argument that they will learn to make choices through having a range to choose from is too weak to be bothered with and the downside OBESITY and DIABETIES is not one to be dismissed lightly, as so many of you are so carelessly doing. Don’t you care about the health of the nations children or is your ideology that much more important??
February 5th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
And you Greenfly have not answered my question.
Why is it that you and he Greens think you can do a better job of raising our kids than we can?
Tolley is dead right, schools are there to teach, the rest is up to the parents, while I am on the subject of teaching lets hope the next thing Tolley gets her teeth into is the curriculum, it is not the jobs of schools to be pushing the global warming con or for them to be indoctrinating our kids with left wing bullshit.
A more back to basics approach is what is needed.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
James Sleep, Tufa bird (plse don’t take that personally)
you are young and have the empty head of being young.
you have no idea of where your genes are going to take you in 40 yrs time.
But I will tell you one thing. I can predict some future.
you will repeat my words to a teenager some time within the next 40 years.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
James
I am not sorry in making this a personal issue, you are a clear example of a human being who has spent far to long hanging around with low life’s and people of questionable sexual preference, clearly it has had a negative influence on what was once your brain.
Just because you are not capable of making a choice please do not delude yourself into thinking that others are as thick as you are, have you not noticed that the bright kids are the ones who do not belong to young Labour or the rainbow faction of your sad political party.
While we are on the subject of life expectancy James it should be noted that your chances of reaching 40 are non existent should you continue to run into the middle of the road obstructing good honest folk going about their business, I know that I sure as hell would not be stopping if you were every dumb enough to leap out in front of my vehicle.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
James, to what age should parents be fully responsible for their children 24/7?
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
big bruv said: …and people of questionable sexual preference, clearly it has had a negative influence on what was once your brain.
What the hell has sexual prefrence got to do with it bruv? It has always been very clear that you are on the extreme right wing economically, but, until now, I at least gave you credit that you were not homophobic.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Toad
Fair call and for the record I am not, however sometimes you see a comment (which seems to have vanished by the way) that just begs a response like that.
I have no issue with what side people choose to butter their bread.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Hey Toad, I think sexual preference has got everything to do with it. We have just had a closet dyke running the country for the last nine years, and look what a fucking mess we are in.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Can’t find James sleeps Post.
first time I’ve seen a post deleted.
Wow, not even demerited….. that’s bad.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
David, I was simply contributing.
[DPF: No you were being an offensive jerk. Piss off]
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Murray M: Whatever her sexuality, what the hell has it got to do with her political performance? The latter stands or falls (and it fell last year) on the baisis of her political management. But it has nothing to do with her sexuality.
And if you want to go down the “closet” path, I could name several MPs (one Nat one with whom – big mistake – I slept about 25 years ago included) – but I won’t!
Because that has nothing to do with their political performance or what they are elected to Parliament to do.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Toad, like me I think your pissed. Good night.
Vote:February 5th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“one Nat one with whom – big mistake – I slept about 25 years ago included) – but I won’t! ”
Marilyn Waring shot straight to the brain cells.
Vote: