Is the Best Practice Educating Students on Body Image and Confidence from the UK or US Educational System?

The UK government is providing parents with packs with information to help their children's body image about themselves.  From BBC News:

A pack to help parents educate children on how the media alters images and to inspire them to be confident in their bodies has had government backing.

Developed for six to 11-year-olds by not-for-profit organisation Media Smart, the pack contains before and after touched-up images of celebrities such as Britney Spears.

It also looks at how ideas of the "perfect" body have changed.

The government said it wanted the pack to "empower parents".

"Young people are being set an impossible standard by images in media and advertising which can erode their self-esteem," she said.

"As parents, we are often aware of these issues, but may not have the advice and guidance we need to talk to our children. 

"I want the pack to empower parents to have those difficult conversations and open the door to discussion."

You can download the parent pack here.  It's only 13 pages but is full of information for children to understand the world of advertising and how this world is a fantasy world made up of photo retouches.

The pack explains:

• what is body image
• what shapes body image

Parents learn raise these issues and questions with their children:

• Are the images children see every day affecting their body confidence?
• Help children understand the pictures they see
• Asking their children "are the pictures we see in the media real"?

The packet details how the magic of advertising works to sell products through the use of airbrushing, digital enhancement and photo manipulation.  There are photos in the packet showing bust enhancement and digitally enhanced photos illustrating enhanced skin color and smoothness.  

One interesting fact listed is 75% of 11-21 girls diet to look more attractive.  What young woman who is "average looking" thinks she is attractive when she looks at photographs in magazines of extraordinary looking models...and those photos have been retouched to achieve that extraordinary level?  Would it help those 75% of women if they realized they were trying to achieve an ideal that is naturally not attainable?

The agency offers tips to help parents talk about their child's body image with the child, and the most important tip coming from this governmental agency is the first one listed, You are the most influential role model in our child's life.  From this very important premise, parents are asked to:

• Be positive
• Help your child accept other people's body sizes and shapes
• Listen to your child's concerns
• Don't tease them about their weight, body shape or looks
• Place value on the achievements 
• Respond to your child's concerns

This is a positive, non-punitive packet for parents to give their children information and learn to distinguish fantasy from reality.  This is quite different than the push to track children's Body Mass Index (BMI) here in the United States and to control food choices under the guise of healthy eating initiatives.  The DOEd's continual emphasis on food rather than acceptance of different body sizes and shapes may contribute to eating disorders, rather than making children healthier:

From Education News:

A new report released this week by the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital has suggested that the numerous programs implemented by schools across the country designed to tackle childhood obesity could be going too far — and could potentially cause eating disorders.
 


Controlling what students eat and tracking their BMIs seems counter-intuitive to empowering them to make good choices when the food police is not around.   Maybe the UK's idea of  helping children accept other people's body sizes and shapes as well as their own, is more healthy than focusing on worrying about obesity and calorie counting food all day.  The UK is equipping parents and students with information for them to talk as a family and make informed decisions, rather than being "nudged" into behavior set by governmental agencies.

The Regulation (not Education) of Food "Choices"

A Scottish student gives this public school meal a low rating.  It meets nutritional standards...but will students eat it?

The political elites in Scotland and the United States have a common goal.  It's the quest for and maintaining governmental control.  Governmental authorities publish talking points of healthy eating and the problems of obesity, but when it comes down to it, the underlying belief from these elites (and bureaucrats) is a centralized governmental authority should handle all decisions about food consumption and production for its citizens.

The first story from BBC News details findings on food nutrition on outside of school food purchases:

School pupils in Glasgow who buy lunch outside school are likely to be consuming too much energy, fat and salt, a survey has found.

The Glasgow Centre for Population Health study bought 45 lunch items around five secondary school areas.

It found 37 samples did not comply with one or more of the nutrient standards for fat, saturated fat and salt.

The study concluded that more needed to be done to encourage healthier "stay-on-site" lunchtime eating among pupils. 

What "encouragement" (or "nudge") does a government provide to encourage healthier "stay-on-site" lunchtime eating?

This study concluded that several factors needed to be addressed if healthy eating was to be increased amongst secondary school pupils.

These included the use of licensing and planning powers to control the number and concentration of take-away food outlets near schools and the possible introduction of taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidisation of healthy foods. 

Glasgow City Council, which commissioned the research, said it was further evidence that its stay-on-site healthy eating initiative - The Big Eat In - was a better option for pupils.

One option entertained is to penalize the take away food outlets by restricting what they can cook and/or institute a tax on "unhealthy foods" near the school because these private businesses don't support the governmental nutritional standards.  A private business can be told what/how to cook food and/or suffer financial penalties if these standards aren't followed. 

What do these Scottish "food fixes" have to do with America?  A governmental board can't penalize a private business for food choices and service in America....right?  It seems as New York City is toying with the same mandate ideas as Scotland:...except this mandate would include adults.  From Hot Air:

Like I said a few weeks ago, this was always the goal of the otherwise dumb soda regs. A restriction on portion sizes makes no sense when it’s limited to one kind of beverage and a select few types of vendors except as a way to inure the public to more draconian regulations down the line. Ban big sodas now, let people get used to it, and then if/when the city’s obesity rate dips — for whatever reason(s) — flog the hell out of those statistics as proof that dietary nannyism works and should be pursued more aggressively. No surprise, then, that the city health board might be thinking about bold new frontiers in keeping you from stuffing your face.

What is surprising is that they’re doing it so soon. This strategy depends on going very slowly at first so that initial worries about a slippery slope will ease. Instead, sounds like they’re ready to turn this into a slippery water slide. Bad move:

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” said Bruce Vladeck, a senior adviser at Nexera Consulting and one of the mayor’s appointees to the 11-member board.
The board yesterday agreed to put Bloomberg’s big-soda ban up for a public hearing July 24, but also talked about the merits of limiting other high-calorie treats.
A large tub of movie-theater popcorn has up to 1,650 calories.
“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories . . . and I’m not so sure what the rationale is not to include those,” said member Dr. Joel Forman, a pediatrics professor at Mount Sinai.

The rationale for skipping milkshakes — for now — is, I guess, that there’s some nutritional benefit to milk-based drinks whereas soda is pure crapola. But of course, it’s not the milk that’s doing the heavy caloric lifting in the average latte syrup bomb, it’s the sugar. Why not drop a portion-size restriction on Starbucks too and let customers supplement their lost milk with a cup out of the carton at home? (Why not just ban the sugar and syrup altogether?) Answer: Because the well-educated diet-minded liberals who sneer at soda consumption kind of enjoy their morning mochaccinos, and if the state starts coming after that now, then Bloomberg might have a real backlash on his hands. Paternalism’s for the rubes, not for the overclass. 

 Paternalism’s for the rubes, not for the overclass.  There you have it in a nutshell.  The mandates coming from Scotland to control children's consumption of food outside of school or NYC controlling sodas, milkshakes and popcorn for adults as well as children has more to do with governmental control than teaching and allowing personal responsibility and freedom for individuals.   Regardless of what the authorities claim about food choices, the fact is, the choice is taken away and we are mandated to certain items.  It's not OUR choice, it is what we are being "allowed".  (That's the same premise school "choice" operates under as well).

What happened to a Scottish girl who blogged about cafeteria food at a public school paid for by taxpayers, while the Scottish government explores mandates to penalize private restaurants?  Her blogs (started by her and her dad as a writing exercise) were eventually banned by the local council but then overturned after public outcry:

Martha began publishing photographs of her Lochgilphead Primary School lunches on 30 April.

She gives each meal a 'food-o-meter' and health rating, and counts the number of mouthfuls it takes her to eat it.

As well as improving her writing, Martha revealed: "The good thing about this blog is dad understands why I am hungry when I get home." 

An Argyll and Bute Council spokesperson said: "Our school meal provision is fully compliant with nationally agreed nutritional standards.

"Young people make a choice from at least two meals and salad, vegetable, yoghurt and cheese options are available each day."

This is the international food playbook:

A culture that redefines food choices as moral issues will demonize the people who don’t share the tastes of the priest class. A culture that elevates eating to some holistic act of ethical self-definition - localvore, low-carbon-impact food, fair trade, artisanal cheese - will find the casual carefree choices of the less-enlightened as an affront to their belief system. Leave it to Americans to invent a Puritan strain of Epicurianism.

It will tell you what and how much to eat and it is following legal standards.  It's not concerned if you are still hungry or what you are hungry for that day and individuals shouldn't be concerned about making personal choices.  It is controlling your choices and telling you its choices are good for you.  

 






 

Michelle Obama Could Not Eat This Meal in Most Public Schools.

This must be an example of "do as I say, not as I do".

I don't care what Michelle Obama eats. She is an adult and can make her own food decisions. This does not hold true for public school students. Children buying lunch at many schools now have food choices dictated by the Federal government. They do not have the chance to make a "good" food decision or an "unhealthy" food decision. It has been made for them by various Federal departments such as the Interior, Health and Human Services, Agriculture and Education agencies.

If Mrs. Obama wants to indulge in a 1,700 calorie meal every once in a while, she should have that right. Conversely, if a school student wants to have chocolate milk at school, he/she should be able to make that choice for themselves. That's a choice that has been pulled from many school cafeterias.

And a carton of chocolate milk is 1/10 the calories of the meal Mrs. Obama enjoyed at the Shake Shack.

Read more from HotAir on the issue of making personal choices and why Mrs. Obama's actions in terms of her rhetoric on dictating childrens' menus seem a bit disingenuous:

The First Lady — and the four agencies tapped by Congress to create the new guidelines (the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department) – might like to pin the blame for the nation’s shocking rates of childhood obesity (one in three kids!) on the food and beverage industry and the $2 billion the industry spends annually to market its products to kids but, until parents and guardians (and, at a certain age, the children themselves) take responsibility for what kids eat, weight problems will persist.

In the Washington Post article, one proponent of the new guidelines said, “We allow companies into our homes to manipulate children to want food that will make them sick.” But that’s the catch: We allow. If parents don’t want their kids to see that Happy Meal commercial, they can mute the TV or turn the channel or, better yet, turn off the TV entirely and go play with their kids outside.

In the meantime, one economic analysis suggested the government’s guidelines would kill 75,000 jobs annually, which, to me, makes opposition to their proposal a no-brainer at a time of 9.2 percent unemployment. (emphasis added)

Has Individual Choice Been Banned in Boston?

Boston can't run away from its history on banning behavior it finds abhorrent. Here is a definition of the phrase "Banned in Boston":

"Banned in Boston" was a phrase employed from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century to describe a literary work, motion picture, or play prohibited from distribution or exhibition in Boston, Massachusetts. During this period, Boston officials had wide authority to ban works featuring "objectionable" content, and often banned works with sexual or foul language.

Here we are in 2011 and apparently certain beverages are grouped together with those items from the late 19th century deemed "objectionable" by the government. Boston Mayor Menino is banning sugary drinks on government-owned property. The basic gist of this order per Mayor Menino:

“I want to create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, worksites, or other places in the community,” Menino said in a statement after the ban was announced.

Is this the purpose of government? Why should a mayor be making decisions on what people can drink on government property? Should government be making our choices for us in what we care to drink? It seems as if Cass Sunstein's version of "Nudge" has arrived in Boston to take over drink machines and fountains. Is "Nudge" the blueprint for governmental decisions these days vs the Constitution?

Well, if you are on jury duty in Boston, you might just want to pack a Coca-Cola if that's your pleasure. Just hope the court system doesn't know about The Little Village School's policy on bringing your own food from home and confiscates your property and denies you your right to consume what you choose to drink.

(There is a bit of irony in this story. Link onto the story and check out the first two advertisements listed. Priceless!)

Watch the Legislation Proposed in Your State. This is Really a Nifty Educational Tool.

If you only bookmark one website, e-lobbyist.com might be the one to bookmark and refer to frequently while the Legislature is in session. This site is free to use and you can become aware of bills introduced in the state which you are following. You can also track up to 10 bills at a time to monitor their progress through the House, and if they make it out of the House, then through the Senate.

I had my eye on this bill last night, HB 59:

Status

January 6 2011 - Read Second Time (H)

Summary

Requires the State Board of Education to establish a coordinated health program board to develop a program on the prevention of student obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type II diabetes

It seems Michelle Obama's recent push to regulate food intake and eradication of obesity might be important in the education of our children. Do you think with Missouri's current $500 Million shortfall this year this program (complete with a board) is a necessity the state budget can afford?

Here's another thought: should childhood obesity and the tracking of childrens' medical health be left up to the parents?

That last question might be a radical thought, to leave the health management of children to the parents. It's just a crazy idea. Might save a bit of money, don't you think?

However, HB 59 may be a piggyback on HB 57 :

Status

January 6 2011 - Read Second Time (H)

Summary

Establishes the Missouri Commission on Prevention and Management of Obesity

What IS it this year? Has war been officially declared on obese children and adults? Be sure to register to track bills being presented this year. The session hasn't been in a week, and you'll be amazed how busy the legislators have been already.

Keep your eyes open! (And maybe pass on that piece of pie after dinner).