13 year old son in trouble for selling Pepsi at school

jellyhead

If they give their kids money, and their kids are willing to buy fizzy pop from a schoolkid, then they are also going to be spending their money buying fizzy pop from the shop on the way to school ... and as they get older they will be going to town with friends, going to the cinema etc - mummy can't always be there ...

The best thing is to tell them why it's unhealthy and make sure they understand moderation. It's not a huge problem if they have a can of pepsi in town on a Saturday, but you don't want them having it twice a day, etc. etc.

kriss_boy

I suppose you could argue its unethical because niave kids are unknownly paying over the odds for something. I mean I cant imagine a colleague coming into work and trying to do the same- we already all just buy these sorts of things when they are on offer!

sassyblue

Bambywamby wrote: »

Much as it is no big deal and the little lad should just be told not to do it again, I can see it from the schools point of view.

If he is taking things into school to sell...say bags of toffees that have nuts in and a child with a nut allegy bought a bag and then went into anaphylactic shock and was incredibly ill or even died...imagine what the fall out would be for the family and the school.
Yes it may only be diet Pespi but some parents may not want their children drinking it: it is full of chemicals, caffeine and is addictive. My son, when young would have paralysing migraines if he drank Pepsi due to the artifical sweetners they pump it full of - same with other cans of sugar free drink.

The school has a duty of care to provide and they cannot provide it and keep control of it if pupils are bringing all sorts of unknown goods to sell on.

The kids that are buying stuff like this are kids who are old enough to know how to use money, so it follows that kids of that age with a nut allergy are clued up enough to know they can't buy something that may contain nuts. They will be well aware of the things they should steer clear of.

Bambywamby

daz501 wrote: »

oh for god's sake bamby...

i worry more about what kids will pick up from news and the media and all the other hysterical ideologies we're surrounded by. Cans of drinks and mild contraband is no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

when you're lying on your death bed, will you think to yourself .... "those cans of coke were a bad idea" ? "i wish i'd eaten less chocolate" etc

Drinking all that liquid filth would certainly hasten the trip to my death bed if I were to consume it.

These drinks are nothing but chemicals and water. The artifical sweetners in diet drinks and other diet products have proven to give laboratory rats cancer so thanks for the "advice" but I will continue to monitor what my child is drinking/eating etc

My son had paralysing migraines to the point he was hospitalised all thanks to aspartame in diet drinks...so don't oh god me!

Bambywamby

sassyblue wrote: »

The kids that are buying stuff like this are kids who are old enough to know how to use money, so it follows that kids of that age with a nut allergy are clued up enough to know they can't buy something that may contain nuts. They will be well aware of the things they should steer clear of.

You would hope they are - but there will be exceptions. However it was an example as to why schools have to be strict about these things not an assumption on my part that all children with nut allergies are uninformed or idiots.

jellyhead

kriss_boy wrote: »

I suppose you could argue its unethical because niave kids are unknownly paying over the odds for something. I mean I cant imagine a colleague coming into work and trying to do the same- we already all just buy these sorts of things when they are on offer!

kids won't be paying over the odds as such ... they will be paying the seller more than the seller paid, but the chances are that's still half the price that the kid would pay in the school cafeteria, and the kid will feel that they are getting a good deal.

I'd rather pay 50p to someone who makes 25p profit than pay £1.20 to the school cafeteria.

Actually, I would rather go to farmfoods and buy my own at the discount price, but I suppose some kids don't get the chance to go into corner shops or town?

jellyhead

Bambywamby wrote: »

My son had paralysing migraines to the point he was hospitalised all thanks to aspartame in diet drinks...so don't oh god me!

That sounds nasty

My kids react to artificial colours, so coke is okay but I have to stop them getting hold of creme eggs and some sweets, throat sweets, antibiotics (grrr!) and cheap pop. Pepsi and coke are okay, but cheaper brands sometimes contain the bad colours.

By high school age though, they have to know what's bad for them and why. They have to be able to make their own purchasing decisions and know how to protect themselves from their allergies.

If they are going to buy something off a kid in the playground then they are just as like to buy that same item from the shop across the road.

There's no need for pepsi in a child's diet, but if everyone else is buying it and there's peer pressure I'd rather my kid bought the full sugar version if it's the diet version that affects them. At parties etc. where everyone is having fizzy stuff I persuade mine that lemonade is their favourite - that way they won't get any bad colours.

daska

While I agree with the notion that not all rules are good, I have to say I'm not happy about encouraging children to simply ignore any rule which, on the surface, appears stupid or simply doesn't allow them to do as they want. As pointed out there might be very good reasons for the rule such as, in this instance, reducing the risk of bullying and theft - when I was at school we had to place all cash etc in a secure box and could only get it back at the end of the day.

Surely it would be better to encourage them to think and challenge the rule rather than simply ignore it? Get them to find out WHY the rule exists, develop arguments to demonstrate why the rule is unreasonable, illogical etc and then, possibly the hardest bit, to accept that personal interest isn't always the benchmark as to whether the rule is 'stupid' or not.

Yes, drug dealing is an extreme example, but schools are having to be more inclusive and are taking children who aren't always capable of keeping themselves safe - the school has to take that responsibility and assess all the risks involved. So, if there's a rule about not bringing food to school, is it correct to assume that it's solely to appease the healthy eating brigade or could it also be that a child at the school has a severe allergy (says me living with someone who has several oral allergies to 'healthy' foods) or who might not fully understand the link between eating a substance and developing a migraine (DS2 has communication difficulties but will still be going to a mainstream school)? Or could it be that someone responsible for policy at the school has previously experienced a problem with a child choking when eating unsupervised and has completely over-reacted?

Honing a child's skills in reasoning and argument gives them a life tool, why not use situations like this to practice on?

daska

jellyhead wrote: »

There's no need for pepsi in a child's diet, but if everyone else is buying it and there's peer pressure I'd rather my kid bought the full sugar version if it's the diet version that affects them. At parties etc. where everyone is having fizzy stuff I persuade mine that lemonade is their favourite - that way they won't get any bad colours.

It's the sweeteners that I react to but I can't buy a single sugar based lemonade in the town I live in... and I really fancied a Pimm's yesterday. :mad:

ashleypride

Bambywamby wrote: »

Drinking all that liquid filth would certainly hasten the trip to my death bed if I were to consume it.

These drinks are nothing but chemicals and water.

Same goes for every other drink or food.

Bambywamby wrote: »

The artifical sweetners in diet drinks and other diet products have proven to give laboratory rats cancer so thanks for the "advice" but I will continue to monitor what my child is drinking/eating etc

No, aspartame has not been proved to be carcinogenic in rodents. Yes, a couple of studies show increased cancer in rodents, but taken with all the all other studies that show it doesn't. Given all the current evidence, aspartame is classed by all Food Standards Agencies as safe.

(Even if it were true, rat and humans bodies are very different. A substance can be carcinogenic to one but not the other.)

Everything you eat or drink, natural or artificial is comprised of chemicals, some of which are poisons, some cause cancer. The only way to be safe is eat a varied and balanced diet.