Why one major city will no longer let fast-food outlets open near schools

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/why-one-major-city-will-no-longer-let-fast-food-outlets-open-near-schools/?utm_term=.5a1ae234bcfe

It's not in Utah or the USA.

A2...

This is behind a paywall.

Could you please let us in on which major city is being discussed?

Thank you!!!

London

This is interesting...Thank you!!!

I learned something else which is interesting about London schools:

Some of the London schools [I think beginning in what we would call "elementary" school, and then through what we would call "high school"] are teaching Sanskrit as part of the regular school curriculum...

...which is neat to watch and hear (there are videos on You Tube), because in Sanskrit, much of the learning is (most often) taught and learned by chanting the different noun cases and verb endings (etc.), rather than by just "saying" them (as we used to do in Spanish and French, when I was in school)...

...and chanting/singing is a really fun way to learn a new language, especially for speakers of English (or other, Indo-European-descended languages). (Sanskrit is about four thousand years old, and is the "mother" of 445 (est.) living languages today, including most of the languages which originated in Europe, such as English.)

So the U.K. is now leading the rest of the planet in at least two new ways!

Thank you for posting this. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2017 04:50AM by Tevai.

More invasion of privacy and invasion of personal freedoms of choice.

in my home, while growing up. My highly dictatorial, Depression-era (waste nothing) mother often tried to force me to eat stuff (mostly vegetables) that tasted absolutely NASTY to me.

These battles would escalate into screaming, spankings, vomiting (when she tried to force me to swallow something by holding my nose and covering my mouth - I nearly choked.)

These battles were so intensely traumatic that to this day, just the smell of certain vegetables (broccoli is one) literally makes me queasy.

I remember watching TV shows like "The Waltons," where everybody just ate dinner and chatted and laughed. I would have loved that.

I swore that I would never force my own children to eat anything, and with a few exceptions, I didn't. The one exception was my youngest, who, as a small child, would rarely eat much of ANYTHING voluntarily. She would be made to stay at the table, with the cold food in front of her, until bedtime, if she held out that long. Usually, she did. In adulthood, she remains a picky eater, with a weight problem, because she still only eats what she likes.

I learned to eat some vegetables at college. When they were not forced on me, I found them tolerable. And salads - I remember trying to tell my best friend that I didn't like salads. She said, in her inimitable way, "Don't be ridiculous. Everybody likes salads. What flavor of dressing do you like?" Just like that, I began eating salads. And loving them.

But I cannot condone making a kid dread mealtime because of anticipated food wars. Not good.

It does not matter. We are all here about 80 years. All the tofu & kale in the world won’t change that.

Annon8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does not matter. We are all here about 80
> years. All the tofu & kale in the world won’t
> change that.

The difference between Christie Brinkley (age 63) and what most people consider "normal" appearance for age 63 can be explained as:

1) proper hydration (amount of distilled water, or other clear, pure, uncontaminated by metals, chemicals, etc., water, drunk daily)

2) optimum nutrition/food (which, simultaneously, means avoiding things like foods or beverages which cause glycation, known "age"-accelerators such as destructive fats, too much salt, etc.---plus the optimum, right-for-that-person, nutritional supplements (vitamins/minerals/phytochemicals, antioxidants, food-in-capsules (like fish oil, or nutritional yeast), and foods for that person, all of which are more or less unique to that individual)

3) avoiding sun exposure beyond a basic minimum

4) exercise (of specific different kinds, including weight-bearing exercise, stretching exercises like yoga, aerobic exercise, etc.)

5) no smoking, and "minimal" alcohol intake (a social drink is fine...more than that is iffy)

Optimum use of the above guidelines leads, on average, to about twenty years difference in appearance at any age above about forty or forty-five. Some people do this exceptionally well (and they look comparatively even "younger"), others do it to lesser levels, but EVERYONE who does this winds up looking significantly younger than those they went to high school with who did NOT do the above.

(I've been in the entertainment industry my entire life, minus the first three years, and I have seen this play out countless times in real time among performers (many who began as child actors or teenagers). Plus: My Grandma was one of the earlier of the "Second Wave" health food pioneers, and my aunt, who did a chunk of the above, was literally head-turning beautiful from the time she entered adolescence up through her early 80s, when she died of pancreatic cancer. There is an ENORMOUS difference in the appearance of people who do the above, compared to those of their same chronological age who do not. Other than avoiding, or possibly delaying the onset of, the big killers like heart disease and cancer, the above guidelines may not extend a person's lifespan exactly, but it absolutely DOES increase a given person's quality of life for the years they ARE alive.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2017 02:46AM by Tevai.

...and George Burns lived to 100, smoking and drinking beyond "social" all of his life, with good "quality of life" right up to the end.

Could it possibly be that your genetics have a lot to do with both longevity and "quality of life" in old age?

What's the point of living a few years longer if those years are full of denial of enjoyment?

Just a counterpoint...:)

I keep saying feed all the school children from the cafeteria. Nutrition should be part of their studies. Feed them whole foods, and as much locally sourced as possible. Or we can keep treating our kids like crap.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I keep saying feed all the school children from
> the cafeteria. Nutrition should be part of their
> studies. Feed them whole foods, and as much
> locally sourced as possible. Or we can keep
> treating our kids like crap.

+1,000!!

I agree totally, Don.

In my experience growing up and going to school in London it would be difficult to place any fast food outlet near a school. Most I know are not close to shops or commercial areas anyway...unless the definition of close runs into miles.