The Instigator
Dk70101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hegiliansdialect
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Federally Provided School Lunches Should Be At Least 50% Organic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 378 times Debate No: 73801
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Dk70101

Pro

The U.S. National School Lunch program serves about 5.5 million meals per day. About 11 million children are served per day in the National School Breakfast program and about 31.5 million in the National School Lunch Program. More than 1 out of 3 children are obese and childhood obesity costs the U.S about $14 billion annually. The National School Breakfast Program states that 85% of the schools participating offer "... at least one fruit (fresh, canned, or frozen in fruit juice or light syrup) at breakfast." But only 72% of its schools offer " at least four non-fried, no-added-sugars fruit or vegetable options daily." Based on these results, it would be beneficial to the health of our children if school lunches contained more fruits and vegetables. This would mandate that 50% of all school lunches, provided by the government, are comprised of organic food. This would thus reduce the risk of childhood obesity, support local farms, and create more jobs.
hegiliansdialect

Con

Obesity doesn't cost the federal government anything. The 14 billion dollars is going to pharmaceutical companies, family doctors, and taxes. What their really saying is that obesity is costing the American people 14 billion dollars, not government. It is incredibly detrimental to perceive issues in multiple ways as an individual. You have to take every perspective and consider by what is best for everybody discrediting that which may harm even one person. The problem is that the American people have become very lazy and cease to ask the important questions. For example; would it not be more practical for the public education system to be funded by those individuals whom are sending their child to that specific school? I'm talking about at the county or township level. What happened that we would ever give absolute authority over the public education system to the federal government? It's totally absurd, so really the question is not if government should allow our children to eat organic food. We should really be asking, do we really want the Federal Government involved in the education of children and young adults at all. I would certainly say no to federal control of the education system, let the state counties determine what the children eat in the school of that county or township. Allow them to determine whether or not they even want to feed the children at all. We have guns don't we, the American people. The second amendment is law for such a reason, so if your worried about government starving your children, don't. Government is meant to fear the citizen in the United States of America. Such policies pressure the individual to work harder which is good for the moral of the people and general health and longevity of the people. It keeps us hard and hard working and most importantly it pressures us think.
Debate Round No. 1
Dk70101

Pro

First of all, my point was that many families have to pay a lot on medical care for obesity. Therefore, cutting down on obesity would benefit more people from having to pay these expensive bills. Second of all, the government is the one serving the food already in the programs- such as The National Breakfast Program. What I said was only the federally provided lunches have to be at least 50% organic ( also in the title). This is only making the meals, that they already serve, a whole lot healthier. Overall, nothing except the quality of the food is changing. This will help teach children how to make healthy choices whilst giving them many health benefits.
hegiliansdialect

Con

Yes, you would like the federal government to provide meals that are at least 50% organic. My argument is that the federal government should not have the power to determine what our children eat. I'm not going to consider your assumption that 50% organic would be more healthy than completely nonorganic meals. 50% organic is still going to be inorganic, the point of organic foods is that they are completely natural. The FDA does not tell you about all the digestive problems people have or the direct link between GMO foods, pesticides, GMO fertilizer, and the cancer rate. Infact many of the FDA certified organic foods are not entirely organic. If you want natural food at all people have to grow it yourself and purchase heirloom seeds which are entirely genetically sound. That is what Government did to our food. The Government is inadvertently poisoning us with toxic foods that are slowly killing people. "Scientists around the world react as a controversial animal study on genetically modified (GM) corn and glyphosate-based herbicide that had been published and then retracted has been republished in expanded form in another academic journal."
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org......
Now, if you would like to continue this debate concerning the ethical use of Government power, please let's continue. My basis should be clear, you wish to allow government over site in the education system and allow them to decide what the children eat, and I would consider such power entirely unethical.
Debate Round No. 2
Dk70101

Pro

Dk70101 forfeited this round.
hegiliansdialect

Con

hegiliansdialect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dk70101

Pro

Dk70101 forfeited this round.
hegiliansdialect

Con

hegiliansdialect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dk70101

Pro

Dk70101 forfeited this round.
hegiliansdialect

Con

hegiliansdialect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by brady11 1 year ago
brady11
I think the schools should give what the kids want or have two different meals served and your able to chose.
One side could be very healthy and the other side be sorta healthy.
Posted by theisticscuffles 1 year ago
theisticscuffles
The Federal Government needs to get out of local school district policy, as the con is arguing.

On the other hand, more locally grown foods without pesticides and genetically modified organisms in food should be something that local school districts (apart from federal control per the con's suggestion) should consider strongly (without a federal gov't mandate).
Posted by theisticscuffles 1 year ago
theisticscuffles
Yes, to the edible school lunches.

There are health benefits to consuming foods with fewer chemicals.

The problem with this debate is that the one side is presenting what's good for human consumption and the other side is presenting what is following the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by bman7720 1 year ago
bman7720
Not to mention that there are no health differences between eating organic food and those treated with pesticides.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
21MolonLabe
Before you start with something THIS daring, let's start with "Federally Provided School Lunches Should Be At Least Edible."
No votes have been placed for this debate.