The problem with this idea is that not all "food" is real food, and children need to be taught what is healthy and what is harmful to the body. I don't think this creates a demon, but rather a healthy child who learns to develop good eating habits.
I've followed the link and yet I still have an issue with this concept. In theory, I agree. This is the same basis for following the babyled weaning method of introducing solids to babies (which I did and I believe is awesome).
The only problem is that so much of our food now really isn't food at all. They are food like substances that are made with the sole purpose to 'trick' our bodies into preferring them (by adding huge amounts of salt, refined sugars, artificial flavours, etc...) There is a whole science behind how companies create food that will in fact 'hook us', and the majority (if not all) of it really isn't healthy at all.
So, yes, I get the not restricting or limiting children because that may in fact backfire. I also understand that we should allow the child to eat whenever and how much he wants. But that holds true as long as the body isn't being tricked by modern food-science.
Children cannot instinctively know that they are being tricked by the food industry. That's the point of having scientists so heavily involved in creating these 'foods' in the first place. Why can't we inform kids of the facts behind what they are eating? You don't have to call it teaching if that term offends you (which I can understand), but obtaining information is part of informed consent. And children do still obtain information from their parents don't they? Even unschoolers do (in many forms).
The problem with this idea is that not all "food" is real food, and children need to be taught what is healthy and what is harmful to the body. I don't think this creates a demon, but rather a healthy child who learns to develop good eating habits.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the comment was written without reading the link.
ReplyDeleteRead a little, try a little, wait a while, watch.
From an unschooling point of view there are problems with teaching ("children need to be taught")
http://sandradodd.com/teaching/
From a health and relationship point of view, there are problems with controlling food:
http://sandradodd.com/eating/longterm
I've followed the link and yet I still have an issue with this concept. In theory, I agree. This is the same basis for following the babyled weaning method of introducing solids to babies (which I did and I believe is awesome).
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is that so much of our food now really isn't food at all. They are food like substances that are made with the sole purpose to 'trick' our bodies into preferring them (by adding huge amounts of salt, refined sugars, artificial flavours, etc...) There is a whole science behind how companies create food that will in fact 'hook us', and the majority (if not all) of it really isn't healthy at all.
So, yes, I get the not restricting or limiting children because that may in fact backfire. I also understand that we should allow the child to eat whenever and how much he wants. But that holds true as long as the body isn't being tricked by modern food-science.
Children cannot instinctively know that they are being tricked by the food industry. That's the point of having scientists so heavily involved in creating these 'foods' in the first place. Why can't we inform kids of the facts behind what they are eating? You don't have to call it teaching if that term offends you (which I can understand), but obtaining information is part of informed consent. And children do still obtain information from their parents don't they? Even unschoolers do (in many forms).