Yes, but you would mess with football practice

Tax parents of fat kids 1% of net income per each percentage of bodyfat above 20% with mandatory nutrition counseling kicking-in for parents with kids above 30%.

"Under government targets, half of all schools must achieve the healthy schools status by December 2006, reaching minimum standards in healthy eating, physical activity, sex and drug education, emotional health and well-being. Around 14,000 schools are involved so far, of which 7,300 have achieved the status."

C'mon, we are supposed to believe a nutritious lunch results in measurable academic performance quite independently of what goes on at home? I can't wait until we hear that sex education and lifestyle counselling turns the kids into scholars. This is just the nanny state patting itself on the back.

Palmcroft, that is the most totalitarian idea I've heard in a while.

Peter:

What would be surprising about good nutrition having a substantial effect on creatures?

Palmcroft,

I take it you used to have a 7 year old child in Hamburg until fairly recently?

Peter B,

I don't know about Canada or Britain, but what is fed to the inmates of American public schools can hardly be considered good nutrition. Don't believe me? Just search a few school websites and look at the lunch menu. You'll be shocked.

Better to just hand the kids a couple of bucks and tell them to be back by 12:30.

Peter:

The question isn't nanny or not, but good nanny or bad.

Orrin:

How about reasonable, respectful nanny? Of course I would expect children who ate well, slept regularly and got fresh air to do better than kids who survived on fries and Twinkies and stayed up all night. But let's get a little perspective here. Chocolate bars aren't cigarettes, some kids are naturally heavier than others and what happens in school is far less important than what happens at home. Unless this policy is focusing entirely on the dysfunctional underclass, it's a combination of parental displacement and secular health fanaticism. It is just silly to suggest there is measurable academic achievement based upon lunch.

The schools are there to teach and civilize, not to be lifestyle police trying out the latest wisdom ordained by dietician/bureaucrats on our children/guinea pigs(which we know will be turned topsy-turvy within a decade). The dietary rules I learned in the fifties are just as applicable today, and they permitted treats and desserts.

Yet they are lifestyle police while the kids are there. So the question is which law? Slovenliness and gluttony?

An entire cafeteria of children, with their 12 servings of vegetables on their trays, under OJs watchful eye.

Food Fight!

Orrin:

Hey, I was cranky when they put the soft drink and candy machines in the schools in the first place, but I was told I was an paternalistic old foggy who didn't understand how the kids would exercise their freedom responsibly. Sure, good food and dress codes, but let's not tell them their carrots will help them see in the dark.

But you do have a choice between supplying them carrots or candy.

Orrin:

Ok, ok. Bring on the carrots. Sheesh, why can't I stop imagining you at summer camp organizing protests against tuck?