Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

M420 - School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme Motion 2017 Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme Motion 2017, TSR Conservative & Unionist Party
    As referenced here, the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme (SFVS) showed a good effect in increasing children’s awareness of different fruit and vegetable, and the benefits it has for children. However, the study shows that long term, it doesn’t do much in terms of keeping the children healthily eating fruit every day. It suggests that if the children remained on the scheme for longer, then it may have more of a positive long term effect.

    This House believes that to help re-enforce the importance of eating fruit and vegetables, and to help keep children continuing to for longer, the SFVS should be extended from children in Years 1-2 to children in Years 1-6.

    Whilst it is currently funded by the Department of Health, this House believes that consideration should be taken to look at whether the Big Lotto Fund should once again help contribute to the costs. In extending this Scheme to more children, for longer, it will help children make the healthier option to try and tackle child obesity issues, in addition to other measures.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Most vitamins and minerals are bioavailable via supplementation to be fair. Certainly eating enough fibrous vegetables is important, but it is entirely possible to be extremely healthy without eating any. Would this money not be better spent on things that children will naturally engage with like activity clubs and the like?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, and I recommend a Vegan lifestyle is promoted too on ethical and environmental grounds, with the reminder that b12 needs to be supplemented.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    :mmm: I like this
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    Not bad

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Most vitamins and minerals are bioavailable via supplementation to be fair. Certainly eating enough fibrous vegetables is important, but it is entirely possible to be extremely healthy without eating any. Would this money not be better spent on things that children will naturally engage with like activity clubs and the like?
    Agreed. Spend this money on facilities for sports clubs. Or better yet, invest in human sized hamster wheels. I guarantee you even the fattest of fat children will run themselves to health on a human sized hamster wheel.

    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    Aye, and I recommend a Vegan lifestyle is promoted too on ethical and environmental grounds, with the reminder that b12 needs to be supplemented.
    I do hope the House doesn't endorse veganism.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, who wouldnt vote aye , we need to be further educating young children about healthy eating , so we need this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, a waste of money to teach something parents should be teaching their child, the government should not be handing out free fruit at a high cost when the return is not worth it.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    Aye, and I recommend a Vegan lifestyle is promoted too on ethical and environmental grounds, with the reminder that b12 needs to be supplemented.
    As much as I am completely persuaded of the ethical case for veganism, I am unconvinced that it is the place of the government to promote it. I'd be interested to hear why you think it is.

    (Original post by jape)
    Agreed. Spend this money on facilities for sports clubs. Or better yet, invest in human sized hamster wheels. I guarantee you even the fattest of fat children will run themselves to health on a human sized hamster wheel.



    I do hope the House doesn't endorse veganism.
    Can confirm: if I had a giant hamster wheel I would be much fitter than I am.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToastyBread)
    Aye, who wouldnt vote aye , we need to be further educating young children about healthy eating , so we need this.
    Who wouldn't vote aye?

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, a waste of money to teach something parents should be teaching their child, the government should not be handing out free fruit at a high cost when the return is not worth it.
    Oh I don't know :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    As much as I am completely persuaded of the ethical case for veganism, I am unconvinced that it is the place of the government to promote it. I'd be interested to hear why you think it is.
    it would tackle the obesity epidemic which would free up the NHS. the future diet is also going to be vegan (arguably, but i'm fairly certain), so the sooner we adapt to it the better off we will be.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    it would tackle the obesity epidemic which would free up the NHS. the future diet is also going to be vegan (arguably, but i'm fairly certain), so the sooner we adapt to it the better off we will be.
    The first point is incorrect. It is incredibly easy to eat a vegan diet and be obese. Pasta exists. Sugar fecks with your insulin, thus your hormones, thus your muscle and fat distributions. If anything, the best science suggests that a ketogenic diet (or certainly low carb) would be the best diet by some margin for tackling the obesity crisis. The main criticism of the latter is adherence difficulty, but it has veganism beat in that regard too.

    Like I said, I am convinced of the ethical case for veganism - I think our practices are abhorrent. I am not, however, convinced of either the health argument (except the argument that it would be preferable to eating the **** we do) or the environmental argument (which I am yet to be completely persuaded of in either direction).

    Relevantly, though, even if I were completely convinced on all counts - why would I want the government to tell me what I should eat? Why would I trust the government? Why do we think the government has any idea what it is talking about RE nutrition given the hilarious history most of the world's major governments have of giving objectively horrific advice to people?

    I am all for promoting the idea that health is important, I just fail to see hoe veganism is an optimal response on any count really.

    Thanks for responding though
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    The first point is incorrect. It is incredibly easy to eat a vegan diet and be obese. Pasta exists. Sugar fecks with your insulin, thus your hormones, thus your muscle and fat distributions. If anything, the best science suggests that a ketogenic diet (or certainly low carb) would be the best diet by some margin for tackling the obesity crisis. The main criticism of the latter is adherence difficulty, but it has veganism beat in that regard too.

    Like I said, I am convinced of the ethical case for veganism - I think our practices are abhorrent. I am not, however, convinced of either the health argument (except the argument that it would be preferable to eating the **** we do) or the environmental argument (which I am yet to be completely persuaded of in either direction).

    Relevantly, though, even if I were completely convinced on all counts - why would I want the government to tell me what I should eat? Why would I trust the government? Why do we think the government has any idea what it is talking about RE nutrition given the hilarious history most of the world's major governments have of giving objectively horrific advice to people?

    I am all for promoting the idea that health is important, I just fail to see hoe veganism is an optimal response on any count really.

    Thanks for responding though
    the reason veganism will tackle obesity is that it will cause immersion into nutritional food consumption, which is needed for people to learn about it and to adopt a healthy diet. i can say this for myself because the only reason i'm vegan is because of all the **** food (mainly dairy products) that i ate beforehand, which caused me to be overweight.

    so you think the practises are abhorrent and yet it's not a political crisis for you? so would you be okay with slavery returning then?
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    the reason veganism will tackle obesity is that it will cause immersion into nutritional food consumption, which is needed for people to learn about it and to adopt a healthy diet. i can say this for myself because the only reason i'm vegan is because of all the **** food (mainly dairy products) that i ate beforehand, which caused me to be overweight.

    so you think the practises are abhorrent and yet it's not a political crisis for you? so would you be okay with slavery returning then?
    Your personal anecdotes are irrelevant, and there is no reason that your point couldn't be extrapolated to one of X amount of other dietary protocols, even if I did accept it as relevant (I don't).

    That is what we call a non-sequitur. Not considering x abhorrent practice a political crisis does not = all abhorrent practices should be legal. That is nonsensical. It also isn't the case that wanting to change abhorrent practices is the same as wanting to become vegan. There is much to be said for deer hunting in massively populated areas where they would otherwise die of starvation and disease, or of eating animals that die of natural causes, or eating the eggs of ethically kept pet chickens. Vegans always want to conflate all of these issues into black and white arguments which is reductive, and precisely why people find discussing any of this with them so pointless and frustrating.

    I appreciate this is an emotive issue for you, but I don't think this discussion is going to productive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Your personal anecdotes are irrelevant, and there is no reason that your point couldn't be extrapolated to one of X amount of other dietary protocols, even if I did accept it as relevant (I don't).

    That is what we call a non-sequitur. Not considering x abhorrent practice a political crisis does not = all abhorrent practices should be legal. That is nonsensical. It also isn't the case that wanting to change abhorrent practices is the same as wanting to become vegan. There is much to be said for deer hunting in massively populated areas where they would otherwise die of starvation and disease, or of eating animals that die of natural causes, or eating the eggs of ethically kept pet chickens. Vegans always want to conflate all of these issues into black and white arguments which is reductive, and precisely why people find discussing any of this with them so pointless and frustrating.

    I appreciate this is an emotive issue for you, but I don't think this discussion is going to productive.
    It's completely non-emotive. (i hate animals, prefer trees). I just don't eat meat and dairy products because it makes me fat. I'm trying to see food as fuel now rather than enjoyment.

    I hold my position, tell me what is so abhorrent with slavery, because it seems that your argument is that government should not take a position on ethical issues. What I'm looking for is what gives humans the right to be free but not other animals?

    (i am willing to kill an animal on camera for you if you would like me to prove that this is a non-emotive issue, but i doubt we want to take it that far do we? (and i would struggle to trap a squirrel tbh))
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    It's completely non-emotive. (i hate animals, prefer trees). I just don't eat meat and dairy products because it makes me fat. I'm trying to see food as fuel now rather than enjoyment.

    I hold my position, tell me what is so abhorrent with slavery, because it seems that your argument is that government should not take a position on ethical issues. What I'm looking for is what gives humans the right to be free but not other animals?

    (i am willing to kill an animal on camera for you if you would like me to prove that this is a non-emotive issue, but i doubt we want to take it that far do we? (and i would struggle to trap a squirrel tbh))
    1) If that works for you, great. That says nothing about the general value of veganism with regards to health. Vince Gironda routinely ate mostly eggs and bacon when he was cutting and he lived into his 80s. His experiences also say nothing about the general value of eating only eggs and bacon.

    2) I didn't say that, or anything that could be interpreted as such by a rational person, anywhere. You can't create an argument and attribute it to me with no evidence whatsoever. Also, I have already said I am convinced of the broad ethical basis for veganism. This does not in any way necessitate a belief that the government should legislate for it. They are two distinct issues. I won't even get into the idea of rights as it would take too long to explain any of it, but the rest of this paragraph suffices as a response to your second point.

    3) I accept it isn't emotive for you. I assumed it was, and that assumption was a mistake. I'm happy to accept that. I would stress at this time that I have a strong preference for you to not film yourself killing animals (just in case). You also just reminded me of this bit by Dylan Moran (I recommend this whole set):

    "Cows are supposed to be killed. En masse as well. I have this certain very well limited sympathy with vegetarians You know I don’t I don’t mind if you’re vegetarian cause you had an accident or something years ago. You fell down some steps and now you can’t chew properly. I don’t mind that but all this vegetarian-on-principle stuff is wrong! You’re supposed to eat the cows. They’re big lumbering stupid things…they’d be everywhere if we didn’t eat them. In the library and everything… Nobody actually wanted them originally. You know, they were just mid- conversation that kept getting bumped into by these cretins… Couldn’t take it anymore. “Give me a ****in’ fork I’m gonna deal with this.” What people really want are squirrels but they’re too quick."
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain - I definitely support the idea of promoting healthy eating and having a good lifestyle; however, I feel this initiative wouldn't be money well spent as there's an alternative way to get young children to eat their fruits and vegetables.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I remember this scheme when I was at school. No, it didn't make me "more aware of fruit and vegetables". A bunch of teachers just got some apples or oranges out and we ate them. It's a nice little thing to have in KS1, but it's really not worth expanding. The benefits are limited to pretty much getting children 1 of their 5 a day and that's it. It's a nay from me.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. Fruit and vegetables are healthy alternatives to obesity-causing sweets and anything which exposes children who might not otherwise have them to them is therefore a good thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    1) If that works for you, great. That says nothing about the general value of veganism with regards to health. Vince Gironda routinely ate mostly eggs and bacon when he was cutting and he lived into his 80s. His experiences also say nothing about the general value of eating only eggs and bacon.

    2) I didn't say that, or anything that could be interpreted as such by a rational person, anywhere. You can't create an argument and attribute it to me with no evidence whatsoever. Also, I have already said I am convinced of the broad ethical basis for veganism. This does not in any way necessitate a belief that the government should legislate for it. They are two distinct issues. I won't even get into the idea of rights as it would take too long to explain any of it, but the rest of this paragraph suffices as a response to your second point.

    3) I accept it isn't emotive for you. I assumed it was, and that assumption was a mistake. I'm happy to accept that. I would stress at this time that I have a strong preference for you to not film yourself killing animals (just in case). You also just reminded me of this bit by Dylan Moran (I recommend this whole set):

    "Cows are supposed to be killed. En masse as well. I have this certain very well limited sympathy with vegetarians You know I don’t I don’t mind if you’re vegetarian cause you had an accident or something years ago. You fell down some steps and now you can’t chew properly. I don’t mind that but all this vegetarian-on-principle stuff is wrong! You’re supposed to eat the cows. They’re big lumbering stupid things…they’d be everywhere if we didn’t eat them. In the library and everything… Nobody actually wanted them originally. You know, they were just mid- conversation that kept getting bumped into by these cretins… Couldn’t take it anymore. “Give me a ****in’ fork I’m gonna deal with this.” What people really want are squirrels but they’re too quick."
    ha. i absolutely hate grey squirrels. every human that i have ever disliked has somehow resembled one.

    okay i will produce a new argument: adopting veganism on a large scale will improve research into non-organic chemistry (because of societal dependance on animal products, such as the flux used to produce steel), which is the vanguard of modern technological development

    feel free not to argue against this as i made it up on a whim, i believe that veganism is a political issue (based on a hunch), but i do also believe that politicians shouldn't consider ethical arguments, that's for the church.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.