Billy sits in his 3rd grade classroom, happily munching on double Dutch chocolate cake with creme frosting.
Suddenly the door to the classroom is kicked open. Five policemen rush into the classroom and surround Billy. "Kid, we have a report you brought a toxic substance into the school and, even worse, are inciting other children to ingest it, much to their peril."
Billy starts crying, "But it's my favorite cake and it's my 8th birthday and I brought enough for everybody.'
"Sorry, kid. We will have your cake analyzed at great taxpayer expense, but clearly you have violated the new statute of the State of California's school nutritional standards which forbids any snacks during the school day containing more than 35% sugar by weight or 35% of their calories from fat or more than 10% of their calories from saturated fats. Kid, it's the slammer for you. The good news is that you can eat all the cake you want in jail!"
**********
OK, I made up this scenario, which hasn't taken place - at least not yet. But the law and its standards are real. I learned of it in a newpaper article about school bake sales being banned in California (
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/us/10bake.html?_r=2&ref=health&oref=slogin&oref=slogin).
Should you have a mistrust of agents of the government getting it right, here is exhibit #1,098,765. First, start with an excellent idea: food offered to kids while at school should be healthy, low in saturated fats and junk food and refined sugar, high in nutrition and fiber, etc.
So far so, good. The initiatives to make
school breakfasts and lunches healthy are truly laudable. Banning soda and other junk drinks -instead offering only water and 100% juices - is right on. Trying to teach proper nutrition and eating habits is an appropriate role for schools where, after all, kids are eating 1-2 meals / day.
**********
But, as often happens, the well-meaning authorities don't know where to stop. Banning cake sales? Does anyone believe that by banning bake sales from the premises, children will come to abhor cake and ice cream and all junk food, and live happily ever after in tofu & bok choy heaven?
Not me. Let's deconstruct the article:
Misstatement #1:
Banning junk food from schools "will do for junk food what smoking bans and taxes did for cigarettes." Forgive me, but what a dumb analogy. There is no inborn pleasure or motivation to smoke, but there certainly is to eat and for foods high in fats and sugar to be especially appealing. If the goal is to make kids hate cake and ice cream, lots of luck fighting city hall. In fact, I'd argue that, in the long run, prohibition only increases their allure, so that the deprived child may even want it more than s/he would have otherwise.
Misstatement #2:
"You're teaching them eating habits for life." I have to say, there is no good research relating early eating habits to those in later life (except in extreme cases). Having watched a lot of kids grow up for a long time, I'm quite skeptical of this truism. The reason to promote healthy eating habits is to keep your kids and their arteries healthy, at least for the 18 years or so in which they are (sort of) in your clutches.
Misstatement #3:
"I don't think all celebrations need to be around food." It is this attitude which led to the described "Healthy Halloween vegetable platter" for kindergartners, a "celebration" which must have bordered on child abuse in my book.
**********
A decade ago, when I was co-authoring Dr. Spock's book, he came out strongly against cow's milk for kids over age 2 years. It was a major bone of contention between Dr. Spock and me (guess who won). Aside from there being little to no credible evidence to ban milk from the diets of children, the idea of a childhood without ice cream was unthinkable to me.
I can't help but believe that - aside from legitimate health concerns - the zealots are in some way anti-pleasure meanies (much like H. L Mencken's definition of puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."). The answer is to teach moderation and smaller portion size, not a blanket prohibition of some of life's great delights - cake, ice cream and, yes, even the occasional Twinkie.
译文:
蛋糕无罪
比利坐在三年级的教室里，津津有味地咀嚼着他的荷兰巧克力蛋糕，蛋糕上还布有焦糖霜，他满心欢喜。
突然，教室的门被踢开了。五个警察冲进教室并把比利包围住了。“孩子，我们了解到你把有毒物质带进学校，更严重的是，你还企图鼓动别的小朋友吃，这将会给他们的健康带来严重的危害。”
比利开始哭诉：“这是我最喜欢的蛋糕，是我8岁的生日蛋糕，我每天只带足够自己吃的分量来学校。”
“不好意思，孩子。我们要花很多的钱来检验你的蛋糕。但很明显，你已经违反了加利福尼亚学校关于营养标准的新法令。这项新法令规定：“在校期间，所带的零食若其脂肪中含有35%的卡路里或者是其饱和脂肪中含有10%的卡路里，则都属于违反法令的行为。孩子，你已经触犯了法令了，但有个好消息，你可以在监狱里吃自己所想吃的蛋糕。”
**********
好的，这一案例是我瞎编的，它没有发生过——至少现在没有发生过。但是这项法令和标准是真实的。我在报纸的一篇文章上了解到：加利福尼亚的学校已经禁止烘烤食品。（http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10us/10bake.html?_r=2&ref=health&oref=slogin&oref=slogin）
如果你不相信政府部门的所作所为是正确的，这里有一项显示#1
，098
，765.
首先，你应该先往好的方面想：在校期间，提供给孩子的食物应该是健康的，低饱和脂肪、无垃圾食品、低糖、高营养素和纤维素，等等。 至今这样做是很不错的。为了保证早餐和午餐的健康，学校的这一新方案是值得称赞的。禁止苏打水和其他垃圾饮料，仅仅提供水和100%的果汁，这一举措正在如火如荼的进行。对于学校来说，努力教给孩子营养知识和合理的饮食习惯，是合情合理的，毕竟孩子们每天都会在学校吃1—2餐饭。
**********
但是，善意的当局者通常不知道坚持适度原则。禁止卖蛋糕？有谁会相信，通过禁止营业场所销售烘焙食品，孩子们就会变得讨厌蛋糕、冰淇淋和所有垃圾食品；就会在豆腐和中国蔬菜的陪伴下快乐地成长？
我不会。让我们来解构分析这篇文章：
错误阐述#1
学校禁止垃圾食品无异于禁烟和征收烟税。原谅我，这是一个很傻的类比。吸烟不是出于天生的乐趣和动机，但是吃高脂肪或高热量的东西是很吸引人的。如果这一目标是为了让孩子讨厌蛋糕和冰淇淋，那么市政府是不会很顺利的。其实我想说的是，从长远来说，这一禁令只会增加它们的吸引力，以致被剥夺权利的孩子更迫切地想吃到。
错误阐述#2：
我不得不说：“你们在教他们健康的饮食习惯。”我不得不承认，这是把早期的饮食习惯和往后的生活联系起来的最好研究（除了一些极端的案例）。长期观察了许多孩子的成长历程之后，我对这一自明之理抱着十分怀疑的态度，之所以提倡健康的生活习惯，是为了保持他们的身体健康，至少18年或者至少当他们还在你的掌控之下。
错误阐述#3:
“我认为，不必所有的庆祝宴会都以食物为中心。正是这样一种态度，导致了这样一种说法“为孩子提供健康的万圣节蔬菜”。在我的书中，“庆祝宴会”几乎意味着虐待儿童。
**********
10年前，我是史博科博士的合书伙伴。但他坚决反对给两岁以上的儿童喝牛奶，这是我和他最大的争执之所在（猜猜谁会赢）。除了没有令人信服的证据可以支持把牛奶从孩子的饮食中撤掉这一提议外，对我来说，没有冰淇淋伴随的童年简直是没法设想的。
我不得不认为——除了对健康合乎情理的关心外，从一定程度来看，那些推崇以上健康条例的狂热者是反对快乐的小气鬼。（正像麦肯对清教徒所下的定义一样：“某人、某个地发所挥之不去的恐惧也许正是快乐之所在。”）。所以，结论是：我们应该教会孩子们学会节制，少吃一点，而不是全面封杀生活中的一些乐趣——蛋糕、冰淇淋，还有有时甚至会因此而发胖。