How could a large part of the population be led to believe that they were “defenseless” from a “killer germ” from Wuhan and that only a vaccination could save them? The real Covidiots are those who take such non-scientific nonsense at face value. Their panic, obedience, and seductiveness show how miserably their health education has failed and how urgently they need a better one. Do you know that there is such a thing as an immune system? That you have one too? How it copes with pathogens of all kinds? It is developed and proven over millions of years? Whoever knows how to strengthen it can no longer be scared, locked up, put on a mask, withheld fundamental rights, made a guinea pig. The “Coronoia” of our time points to an unparalleled educational policy failure. Who is responsible for it, who is it suitable for, how can it be remedied?
How are such Infection Fatality Rates (IFR) possible when we were supposedly “defenseless” before the Corona epidemic before Big Pharma gave us new types of vaccines?
On a global average, a maximum of 5 in 1000 will contract Covid-19 because the remaining 995 are not previously sick enough. Your immune system works! It succeeds in rendering the pathogen harmless. If it is weak, it can be strengthened – non-pharmaceutical, in a natural way.
It also applies to the much-cited “risk groups”: the elderly, the overweight, the immunocompromised, diabetics, hypertensive, respiratory, and other chronic sufferers. Even among them, most of them survive contagion; It would do even more if they could finally find out what they could do for it themselves.
The ongoing mass panic, the blind trust in lying politicians, experts, and the media, the willing submission to the dictatorship of hygiene, the unconditional willingness to make the guinea pig in the most giant, riskiest medical experiment in history: ultimately, all of these are symptoms of an educational emergency without equal.
They reveal a lack of health education, especially about the importance of a wholesome diet and plenty of exercise. A state that cares about public health enables its citizens to take care of their health as much as possible, independently and in an informed manner.
A school subject, “nutrition,” was “not necessary,” so the bank clerk Jens Spahn and his cabinet colleague, the former wine queen and religion teacher Julia Klöckner, found in a joint statement in November 2018. (4)
That is, valued cautiously: a pity. With the help of health self-help, a genuinely caring state cannot begin early enough. Because the course for behavior patterns that promote or help avoid chronic diseases is set in early childhood: also, but not only, through improper nutrition.
That is why health education must take place in daycare centers and kindergartens, but at the latest from the first grade onwards – not on the fringes, but as a main subject. Best of all, it transforms every educational institution from the ground up across disciplines. A new spirit is needed.
If the urgency does not make sense to you, you should look around Schoolyards during the breaks. One in five children already is obviously overweight, and almost one in ten has crossed the line to become obese. Every sixth child and fourth adolescent already have a chronic underlying disease that lasts longer than a year. (5)
Among medical professionals, the radiologist Prof. Dietrich Grönemeyer, older brother of the singer star Herbert, is the best-known advocate of “understanding one’s own body from childhood.” With a foundation founded in 2007 that bears his name, he is vehemently committed to health education in schools – “because it is usually too late for adults.” (6). Early health education, he firmly believes, could relieve the health system financially and curb common diseases.
Such demands are by no means new. Readers of the Pedagogical Observer, the Zurich “Wochenblatt für Erziehungs und Studium,” a Weekly paper for education and study, found a plea for the “inclusion of health education as an independent subject” in the February 19, 1876 edition. It should not be misunderstood as “undue interference by doctors in the field of education.” Instead, it serves the “fight against deep-rooted damage and rusty prejudices.” (7)
But politicians have always been preventing plausible ideas from finally being followed by decisive action. They justify their blocking attitude with the same six arguments, one more meager than the other.
Six pathetic excuses
Where would we end up, skeptics ask, if all new subjects that somehow make sense would find their way into the school? Even 48-hour days would not be enough. A subject of “everyday knowledge” could teach children how to open a bank account, how to prepare a tax return, how to take out insurance and a rental agreement, and how to take legal action. 75 percent of Germans want lessons in “behavior,” and Every second person wants a compulsory subject, “economics.” “Many subjects result from the particular interests of associations or institutions,” says Die Zeit. “The consumer association Bundeszentrale naturally considers consumer education to be quite helpful. The Red Cross believes that first aid should be taught. The Platt Deutsch Association is committed to Platt Deutsch, and the ‘Optimists for Germany’ association considers teaching happiness indispensable. “(8)
The poor logic of this argument is shared by people who generally do not donate: “I can’t help everyone – so I don’t help anyone.” Even if I can’t alleviate every need, shouldn’t I tackle the most serious one? In surveys, health ranks first among the most critical values, ahead of family and success. May, shouldn’t this weighting be vehemently reflected in the area of culture?
Health education is the responsibility of the parents, some say – as well as education on personal hygiene, how to dress independently, how to control aggression, about basic social skills such as manners and empathy. Having to take on these tasks, too, is overwhelming for the school. As a spokesman for the Saxon Ministry of Culture explained, we “cannot repair what has already been broken” (9). It is precisely how teachers’ associations see it: “We are tired of being responsible for all deficits in the family – the same applies to youth violence. Healthy nutrition remains the job of the parents at home. “(10). The school is” not a repair shop for undesirable social developments. ” (11)
The fact is that health education is becoming less and less common at home. Children learn from the model. What role models offer parents who regularly serve fast food and soft drinks, frozen and ready-made products, and have snacks and snacks ready in front of the television every evening? The emancipation movement made it possible for women to achieve self-realization at work. It took away the person responsible for carefully planning meals, conscientious shopping, and freshly prepared food at home. Fewer and fewer families are cooking, and hardly anyone has or takes time for it. Hardly anyone can do it like their grandmother once did; More and more adults have shocking gaps in their knowledge of the preparation, origin, and variety of foods. The modern household is characterized by microwaves and freezers, industrial-processed meals, nimble delivery services, and hasty eating on the run.
With their eating and cooking culture, subsequent generations lose the ability to eat independently and in a balanced way. Anyone who seriously believes that home is still the right place for health education has apparently never paid attention to what mothers and fathers fill in their shopping trolleys in the supermarket in a hurry – and what is mainly on the table at Germany’s meals.
Health education has long been taking place, in sufficient measure, we also hear. It is done in subjects such as biology and chemistry, home economics, local studies, and specialist knowledge. According to Jens Spahn and Julia Klöckner, it is entirely sufficient that nutrition information is “generally integrated into everyday school life.” (12)
According to, 64 percent of students stay in permanent sleep: According to their statements, many have rarely or never learned anything about how to eat correctly in class. (13) The “integrated information” they hear is usually theoretical material that neither touches nor stimulates them and certainly does not change ingrained habits.
Blockierer explains that there is simply no room for a separate subject of health in the already overloaded timetables of our schools. “There is currently too little teaching time to teach the children German, English, or mathematics, ” the German Teachers’ Association president clarifies. (14) Our children are already overwhelmed by the abundance of learning material.
Where there is no space, one has to be created – if necessary, at the expense of other subjects. Clearing out curricula, saying goodbye to a centuries-old, outdated canon of subjects, slaughtering sacred cult cows: all of this is overdue. The life that school is supposed to prepare for must, first and foremost, be a healthy one. Is knowledge of how to do this less important than the exact meter height of Mount Everest, the precise dates of imperial coronations, the covalent two-electron bond, the series formula of the hydrogen spectrum, arccosine functions, and partial integration? What material could be more vital during the 12,000 or more hours that children spend in school?
Health classes are too expensive, they say. The state of Niedersachsen alone would receive 200 million euros per year for two hours of health per week, as ministerial officials there want to have determined. (15) But on the other hand, are several billions readily available for the “digital classroom”?
Health classes do not bring anything; they say: It goes in one ear and out the other. It certainly applies to the abstract transfer of knowledge. But there is another way: vivid, practical, entertaining, exciting, interactive.
Rethinking and redesigning schools
In surveys, nine out of ten Germans finally want a school subject, “healthy eating.” (16)
That alone would, of course, not be enough. One thing is clear: it shouldn’t just be about installing another compartment. Such an innovation would “be misused by inactive politicians, a sluggish administration, or disinterested teachers merely as an alibi,” said freelance education officer Siegfried Seeger. “If you want to ease your conscience in this way, you harm our children.” (17)
Seeger receives support through the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences and the Techniker Krankenkasse. Carried out in 2004 on over 500 first to fourth-graders at 14 elementary schools: Overweight children did not lose weight by taking a school subject; the pounds only fell when the entire school geared towards health – and the private environment took part. (18)
The goal does not have to be anything less than a real work of art, namely a healthy school: a healing place where everything our children experience and do serves their physical and psychological well-being, both present and future. In addition to imparting knowledge, this includes plenty of physical activity that is fun. Also, a Pollution-free architecture, ergonomic furniture, clean toilets, good indoor air, lots of natural light, and cheerful colors are needed. Protection against electrosmog; a learning atmosphere that is good for the soul, arouses curiosity, gives creativity a lot of space, promotes independence, conscious consumption, and critical thinking; a harmonious togetherness that provides for careful mediation of conflicts, protects minorities, and nips bullying in the bud. It is only in such an environment that attitudes and habits develop that can also have a lasting impact on health behavior outside of the school premises and long after graduation.
Such a school does not limit the topic of nutrition to a few additional textbook pages, worksheets, and lectures by the teacher. More knowledge is by far not enough – it is about being able and doing. The most well-founded nutrition science fizzles out without exemplary practice, and it must first and foremost prove itself on what is on the plate.
More and more all-day schools are setting up canteens. Over three million children in Germany have a legal right to be cared for there. How this happens has a decisive influence on their physical condition, well-being, concentration and performance, and eating and drinking habits outside of school. So the first thing to do is to clarify priorities. Should children be fed as cheaply as possible? Then you continue to rely on the standardized food of large kitchens, which offer unimaginatively monotonous menu plans, long transport routes, and inferior, fatty food that is kept warm for hours. It is mush flavored, from boiled vegetables to softened noodles and half-crumbled boiled potatoes to leathery pork schnitzel with burnt bread Ready-made sauce. Schoolchildren with enough pocket money prefer to flee to the chip shop around the corner unless the school cafeteria offers a junk food highlight such as currywurst with french fries and ketchup. There are no vegetables, lettuce, or fruit. Quality and diversity fall by the wayside.
To achieve an effective, sustainable change in nutrition, schools have to renegotiate or terminate existing caterer contracts and conclude supply contracts with nearby organic farmers. You have to set up or reactivate your kitchens to cook fresh and varied on-site. And they should create their own garden in which healthy things are grown, tended, and harvested. Very important: The students must be involved under the guidance of teachers, volunteers, and the active help of parents who have time. Children should share responsibility – be it for planting and fertilizing, for peeling and cutting, for mixing, or for seasoning. Nutrition can appeal to all the senses, arouse curiosity, and fascinate. Shopping together; get to the bottom of the production of food, its ingredients, and their utilization in the body. Prepare food yourself and use kitchen utensils. Seeing, smelling, and tasting delicious things: something like this shapes children’s eating habits for more than a thousand words.
There are no limits to the educational imagination. It just needs space for unbureaucratic development. “Children eat everything if you let them cook with you,” assures the Austrian TV cook Sarah Wiener, who in 2007 set up her own foundation for “Practical Nutrition Education for Children.” “You can bring the children to the stove with you so that they can achieve the first cultural achievement in human history: to be able to judge what they put in their mouths. Children who gain cooking experience, try out tastes, learn to eat with pleasure and experience how food is produced in agriculture, eat healthier and behave more sustainably towards their environment.” (19) To arouse their curiosity and joy, to train their taste, of course, requires time and patience. Otherwise, the gently steamed cod has no chance against Captain Iglo’s fish fingers. And just being healthy is not enough: a meal must also taste good and look delicious. The atmosphere also has to be correct.
And it has to be looked into in-depth. Unhealthy eating routines are primarily the result of a mass manipulation of children’s legs that has become a matter of cultural terms. Our little ones have become downright dependent on sugary, too salty, too greasy, artificially flavored foods because their sense of taste has been denatured: What tastes less sweet or salty, spicy, savory like pizza and hamburgers, pasta, and french fries hardly has a chance with them. To give up such preferences requires understanding that they are industrially programmed. “Anyone who considers a natural fruit to be bland compared to artificial fruit flavors and who cannot get anything from the taste of vegetables or vegetarian food is basically a patient who needs help,” says hobby chef Jürgen Dollase, author of culinary books and for the SZ -Magazine “the best German gastronomy critic.” Dollase finds it “simply irresponsible to refrain from opening up and expanding culinary awareness. An incoherent preoccupation with school lunch that does not consider and thematize what happens outside of school is nonsense. It will never do more than put a few organic side dishes next to the hamburgers or sausages. “(20)
Some things still require improved basic and advanced training for teachers and educators, new teaching materials, revised curricula, and suitable rooms. But a lot can be implemented immediately – two half hours of exercise every school day, for example. Fresh fruit and vegetables could be available for the children during all breaks, plus plenty of still water. The next class trip could be to an organic farm instead of a modern art museum.
School lunch in Germany costs an average of EUR 5.36, of which parents pay EUR 3.50. (21) That is enough for standardized large-scale kitchen meals. As Federal Food Minister Julia Klöckner pointed out (22), it is hardly done. Suppose you want to serve schoolchildren at lunchtime with fresh, regional, seasonal ingredients, without chemical waste, in organic quality. In that case, you have to spend more money, at least one or two additional euros. The federal, state, and local governments should help financially overwhelmed families. The around 1.2 billion euros that Germany’s municipalities have used to subsidize school meals are not enough.
A healthy school cannot possibly function without the parents, and certainly not against them. What happens at home can thwart the best health education in schools and ruin their returns. England’s celebrity chef Jamie Olivier experienced this when he started a highly acclaimed campaign in 2015 to replace junk food with wholesome meals in British schools. Mothers then handed their ecotrophologically tormented little ones the beloved fast food over the school fence. (23)
Therefore, mothers and fathers need to be persuaded and involved; they have to be open, take their time, and get involved, even within the school. To do this, many first need a lot of tutoring. The statistically most significant risk factor for obesity in children is overweight parents.
The country also needs additional qualified teachers – tens of thousands are already missing. “Many of them feel overwhelmed when they are supposed to teach health-related topics in an interdisciplinary manner that had little space in their training. Your workload is already tremendously high,” says Gudrun Zander, Head of Department at the State Institute for Schools and Training in Schwerin in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. (24)
Make the couch potatoes legs.
It’s not just about nutrition. Health also requires physical activity. How much incentive do parents offer their offspring to exercise if they are among the 57 percent couch potatoes who do less than 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of intense physical activity per week, as recommended by the WHO as a minimum guideline? (25)
To “promote the desire for exercise and prevention,” Grönemeyer advertises a daily hour of school sports. To this end, he developed a program with 40 exercises for 20 minutes, according to the motto: “Gymnastics to the urn.” In 2015, Grönemeyer initiated “The Moving School Break.”
But why rigid “exercises”? Every school day should simply offer plenty of freedom and an incentive for extensive exercise that is fun and keeps you fit: running, running, playing, hopping, catching, just anything that encourages children’s natural urge to move, for pure enjoyment, without pressure to perform and grade. If guys want to play football every day: leave them.
Traditional physical education, on the other hand, should be outsourced to the club. There is no place in school for physically skilled people who feel obliged to provide early support for future Olympic champions or live out sadistic tendencies by forcing frightened children to do breakneck floor gymnastics and stretching exercises.
Endless lip service, tentative approaches
Why have federal and state governments not drawn the apparent school policy consequences for a long time? At least cloudy declarations of intent they have meanwhile put into the world in abundance. “It is important to me that children learn something in school about how they can live healthily,” said Federal Health Minister Ulla Schmidt (SPD) in autumn 2007; this included, above all, diet and exercise. It was preceded by the suggestion of a State Secretary of the Ministry of Consumer Protection to introduce a separate school subject, “Nutrition and Consumer Education.”
What followed? Very little. Only two federal states, Bremen and Hamburg, were open to it – the rest waved them off. The then chairman of the Conference of Ministers of Education, Berlin’s Senator for Education, Jürgen Zöllner (SPD), also found the initiative “not very useful.” (26)
Five years later, in November 2012, the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs passed a “recommendation” according to which “health promotion must be understood as an indispensable element of sustainable school development.” “The aim of a good and healthy school” is to “maintain and strengthen the health resources and potential of all those involved in the school.” (27). However, “nutrition education is the responsibility of the federal states, and the schools are self-governing.” (28)
In July 2015, a “Law to Strengthen Health Promotion and Prevention” came into force, favoring non-binding, vague objectives. It renounces obligations. As far as daycare centers and schools are included, early detection examinations, the “promotion of vaccination prevention,” and AIDS and drug education are in the foreground. The law does nothing in the least to change the disgusting fact that the Federal Republic of Germany only uses three percent of its health expenditure for preventive care – of which only a fraction in the school sector. Even the authors do not dare claim that such papers have made Germany’s pupils even healthier by a tenth of a percent.
The Federal Ministry of Consumers praises itself for promoting so-called “networking centers for healthy lunch” as early as 2008, with two million euros per year from 2019. In addition, it set up a “National Quality Center for Nutrition in Schools,” or NQZ for short, within the Federal Office for Food and Agriculture. A lot of bureaucracy, little income: on the one hand, healthier food is, of course, better than inferior quality – but without a comprehensive educational school concept that more than just fills stomachs, it is not nearly enough.
Federal patchwork quilt full of holes
As long as schools in Germany remain largely a state matter and state governments leave it to self-governing schools to decide whether and how they implement what is necessary, the educational landscape in health matters resembles a patchwork quilt.
There are plenty of laudable approaches. Grönemeyer’s two-day school seminars and musical tours; a “Healthy Breakfast” campaign; interdisciplinary “project weeks”; School gardens and school kitchens; a visit to the farm; training older students to become “nutritional ambassadors” for younger ones: none of this can do any harm. A “health certificate” has to be acquired at Hessian schools. Upper school classes receive health lessons at two high schools in Bremen; Hamburg district schools have been offering a subject “Nutrition” since the 2009/10 school year; the state of Saxony offers its schools “support offers” on the internet portals. There is a compulsory subject, “Nutrition and Health” in Bavaria at secondary schools – but only in grade seven. Thuringia refers to the topic “school garden.” Baden-Württemberg’s secondary and secondary schools include the elective subject “Everyday culture, nutrition, social affairs.” In the third grade of elementary schools in Baden-Württemberg, a media package entitled “Nutrition Driving License” is used; Nine to ten-year-olds learn, for example, what the food pyramid and the inside of a pepper look like. In Lower Saxony, the subject “health” has appeared in the curriculum of vocational high schools and secondary schools since 2002.
But most projects only run for a limited time, are not integrated into everyday school life, and are inevitably limited to a few selected aspects. In high schools, in particular, they offer arid, textbook-style science that promotes seconds of sleep. And a rare special event? It is easy for pupils to show interest in it or pretend, especially since it is perceived as a welcome change from everyday school life. Will it continue to have an effect? Doubts are in order.
Here is a well-intentioned initiative; there is a nice idea. Whether and how an adolescent learns to live healthily depends on whether he happens to be attending the right educational institution in the right community, where innovative principals, convinced teachers, and enthusiastic parents have put all their heart and soul into a common cause.
In the case of individual measures, how precious little they would affect from the outset was foreseeable. The fact that they took place anyway shows either shocking naivety, an actionist placebo policy (“We’re doing something!”), Or subtle sabotage of the Healthy School project (“You see, nothing!”).
Small bright spots in primary schools
Effective health education is most likely to take place in elementary schools. Developed by three state medical associations and two AOKs, the prevention program “Gesund macht Schule” has run in some areas since 2001. It includes the main topics “Eating and Nutrition,” “Exercise and Relaxation,” “The Human Body / At the Doctor’s,” “Sex Education,” and “I-Strengthening and Addiction Prevention.” In the 2017/18 school year, 239 primary schools were implemented nationwide, reaching over 55,000 students and their parents. (29) In addition to a variety of well-thought-out teaching materials – from anatomical teddy bears to hygiene cases -, newsletters, letters from parents, an Internet portal, and training for teachers, it relies on “sponsorships” that doctors take on for at least one year for one or more schools.
In the nationwide initiative fit4future of the Cleven Foundation and DAK-Gesundheit, supported by the Technical University of Munich, a total of 600,000 children take part in 2000 primary and special schools. (30) The schools receive, among other things, play and sports equipment and “brain fitness” boxes; Teacher workshops take place.
The most widespread prevention program for German first to fourth graders, Class 2000 (31), was presented by doctors and educators at the Nuremberg Clinic in 1991. Started in Bavaria, it is now used in all federal states. To date, over 1.8 million children have become acquainted with the symbolic figure “Klaro,” a stick figure with a yellow smiley head. At the moment, every seventh elementary school child in Germany takes part in Klasse2000: In the 2017/18 school year, over 480,000 children from more than 21,200 elementary school classes took part, which corresponds to over 15 percent of all elementary school classes. Playfully and entertainingly, the little ones get to know five subject areas: “Eat & drink healthily,” “Move & relax,” “Like yourself & have friends,” “Solve problems & conflicts,” “Think critically & say no.” The contents are conveyed to the students in nine to 13 units as part of the regular lessons, mainly by the teachers, in some cases also by so-called “health promoters” from medical and educational professions. Efficacy studies prove the benefit: three years later, in the 7th grade, tobacco, and alcohol consumption are significantly less common among children who had been in grade 2000 (7.9 percent) than in a control group of the same level (19.7 percent). (32) Even during the program, grade 2000 children more frequently eat five servings of fruit and vegetables and a maximum of one candy per day. They use fast food and soft drinks less often; and more often choose an “active” way to school that forces them to be physically active, e.g., cycling or walking, instead of being driven by car. (33) Teachers, schoolchildren, parents, and “health promoters” are surveyed every year, and the concept and content are updated and adapted accordingly.
Such projects have to catch on everywhere as quickly as possible. Why is the necessary not happening across the board – based on a clear, national concept for all school types and grades; thought through motivational psychology; firmly anchored in the timetable; generously supported by state funds; flanked by a broad-based, coordinated campaign by the responsible ministries and institutions such as the Federal Center for Health Education – and scientifically endorsed for the purpose of ongoing success monitoring to find out how much ultimately gets stuck?
In spring 2018, a team of experts from Bielefeld University and the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin presented a “National Action Plan for Health Literacy.” It provides for appropriate educational offers to be firmly anchored nationwide in the curricula of daycare centers, and elementary and secondary schools. (34) Why are government agencies not finally taking up such initiatives with determination? Why has “the topic been dragged on for ten or fifteen years,” as Thomas Fischbach complains, President of the Professional Association of Pediatricians? (35)
Sabotaged by business lobbyists
The sad truth comes closer to those considering which political camps have been the most obstinate for years. Representatives of business-oriented parties are the ones who act as disbursers, brakes, and disdainers. The main motive is apparent: Which schoolchild would still resort to industrial agriculture’s pesticide and hormone-contaminated products as soon as they have sufficient “health literacy”? Which other so-called “foods” would be served by the ZuckerSalzFett-Connection? Swallow a mix of synthetic colors and preservatives, emulsifiers, and flavor enhancers? Instead, would you have imported goods, frozen food, and ready-made meals from the microwave on your plate than locally produced, freshly prepared organic quality? To let beverage companies quench your thirst instead of just turning on the tap?
Every scientifically reasonably well-founded health lesson opens eyes. It inevitably leads to embarrassing systemic criticism that endangers sales. It creates new generations on which pharmaceutical manufacturers can earn considerably less. Where would we go if something like this catches on?
This article contains excerpts from the book by Harald Wiesendanger, published in 2019: Das Gesundheitsunwesen – How we see through it, survive and transform, there pp. 573-588.
Translated with permission from Klartext
Support “Ways Out Charity“! With your support, we can help and move forward. > https://bit.ly/3wuNgdO
Remarks
(1) https://swprs.org/fakten-zu-covid-19/
(2) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6.full.pdf, S. 12.
(3) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21.20198796v1, S. 8.
(4) Zit. nach Jürgen Dollase: „Wenn Minister nicht das Ganze im Auge haben“, Eat-Drink-Think.de, 12.11.2018, http://www.eat-drink-think.de/wenn-minister-nicht-das-ganze-im-auge-haben-julia-kloeckner-vom-bundesministerium-fuer-ernaehrung-und-landwirtschaft-und-gesundheitsminister-jens-spahn-wollen-kein-schulfach-ernaehrung, abgerufen am 8.6.2019.
(5) Siehe H. Wiesendanger: Das Gesundheitsunwesen (2019), https://stiftung-auswege-shop.gambiocloud.com/das-gesundheitsunwesen-wie-wir-es-durchschauen-ueberleben-und-verwandeln-printausgabe.html S. 39 ff.: „Minderjährige – unterwegs zu Chronikern“.
(6) mdr.de, 28.2.2018: „Medizin für Kinder -Grönemeyer fordert Schulfach ‚Gesundheit‘“, http://www.mdr.de/wissen/bildung/groenemeyer-fordert-gesundheitsunterricht-an-schulen-100.html, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(7) Pädagogischer Beobachter 7/1876, S. 1-2: „Gesundheitsunterricht in und ausser der Schule“, PDF, http://doi.org/10.5169/seals-237875.
(8) Zeit online, 7.2.2018: „Ein Stundenplan für morgen“, http://www.zeit.de/2018/07/schulfaecher-unterricht-inhalte-bildungspolitik/komplettansicht, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(9) Zit. nach Frankfurter Rundschau, 24.9.2007: „Breite Mehrheit gegen Schulfach ‚Ernährung‘“, http://www.rundschau-online.de/breite-mehrheit-gegen-schulfach–ernaehrung–10970094.
(10) Zit. nach Welt.de, 24.1.2008: „Kochen könnte auch an Deutschlands Schulen Pflichtfach werden“, http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article1588415/Kochen-koennte-auch-an-Deutschlands-Schulen-Pflichtfach-werden.html, abgerufen am 8.6.2019.
(11) Zit. nach Herolé Blog, 12.3.2019: „Brauchen wir das Schulfach „Gesunde Lebensweise“?“, http://www.herole.de/blog/brauchen-wir-das-schulfach-gesunde-lebensweise, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(12) Zit. nach Dollase, a.a.O.
(13) Nach LBS-Kinderbarometer 2007, S. 100 ff.
(14) Zit. nach Welt.de, 24.1.2008, a.a.O.
(15) Nach Focus.de, 31.1.2008: „Schlank durch Bildung – Brauchen wir ein Schulfach Gesundheit?“, http://www.focus.de/familie/schule/unterricht/brauchen-wir-ein-schulfach-gesundheit-schlank-durch-bildung_id_2192524.html.
(16) Zeit online, 7.2.2018, a.a.O.
(17) 122 Zit. nach http://www.focus.de/familie/schule/unterricht/brauchen-wir-ein-schulfach-gesundheit-schlank-durch-bildung_id_2192576.html, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(18) Angela Schröder u.a.: Primärprävention und Gesundheitsförderung in der Grundschule: Überblick zu Programminhalten und Ergebnissen der vierjährigen kontrollierten Interventionsstudie “primakids” in vierzehn Hamburger Grundschulen, Hamburg 2009, Schriftenreihe Studien zur Kindheits- und Jugendforschung, Bd. 54.
(19) Zit. nach https://sw-stiftung.de/startseite, abgerufen am 14.6.2019, sowie nach Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 256, 7.11.2018, S. 2.
(20) Eat-Drink-Think.de, a.a.O.
(21) http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ernaehrung/Kita-Schule/Studie-Kosten-Schulverpflegung.pdf;jsessionid=8FEE1022E4ADA25580C25E39634EA004.1_cid367?__blob=publicationFile; http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/ernaehrung-5-40-euro-reichen-fuer-ein-gesundes-schulessen.680.de.html?dram:article_id=432511, abgerufen am 14.6.2019.
(22) http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/2018/169-Schulessen.html, abgerufen am 14.6.2019.
(23) http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Jamie-Oliver-attackiert-Theresa-May-article19849473.html; https://eatsmarter.de/gesund-leben/news/anti-food-kampagne-warum-jamie-oliver-wut-kocht; abgerufen am 8.6.2019.
(24) Zit. Focus.de, a.a.O.
(25) Nach dem DKV-Report 2018: „Wie gesund lebt Deutschland?“, http://www.ergo.com/de/DKV-Report, abgerufen am 6.6.2019.
(26) Kölnische Rundschau, 24.9.2007: „Breite Mehrheit gegen Schulfach ‚Ernährung‘“, http://www.rundschau-online.de/breite-mehrheit-gegen-schulfach–ernaehrung–10970094.
(27) http://www.kmk.org/themen/allgemeinbildende-schulen/weitere-unterrichtsinhalte/gesundheitserziehung.html; die „Empfehlung“ als PDF: http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2012/2012_11_15-Gesundheitsempfehlung.pdf; abgerufen am 6.6.2019.
(28) www.dnsv.eu/kmk-ausgestaltung-liegt-in-der-laenderverantwortung-und-in-der-selbstverantwortung-der-schulen, abgerufen am 6.6.2019.
(29) http://www.gesundmachtschule.de, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(30) https://kids.fit-4-future.de/de; https://youtu.be/U3mW16PxFio, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(31) http://www.klasse2000.de; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPl0NpyoVY, abgerufen am 7.6.2019
(32) M. Maruska u.a.: Das Unterrichtsprogramm Klasse2000: Effekte auf Substanzkonsum und Gesundheitsverhalten 3 Jahre nach Ende der Intervention. Kurzzusammenfassung, PDF, https://web.archive.org/web/20140202130640/https://www.ift-nord.de/pdf/Klasse2000_Kurzzusammenfassung2012.pdf, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(33) Petra Kolip: Evaluation Programm Klasse2000. Zusammenfassender Abschlussbericht, PDF, Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften 2016, http://www.klasse2000.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studie_Ernaehrung_und_Bewegung_2016-Abschlussbericht.pdf, abgerufen am 7.6.2019.
(34) http://www.nap-gesundheitskompetenz.de/; der Aktionsplan zum Download: http://www.nap-gesundheitskompetenz.de/app/download/7775446063/Nationaler%20Aktionsplan%20Gesundheitskompetenz.pdf?t=1535644861, ib. S. 32.
(35) Zit. nach Herolé Blog, a.a.O.
- Harald Wiesendanger, Seuchenschutz, Gesundheitsunterricht, Coronoia, Immunsystem, IFR, Bildungspolitik, Jens Spahn, Julia Klöckner, Covid-19, Risikogruppen, Ernährungskunde, Dietrich Grönemeyer, Couch Potatoes, Gesetz zur Stärkung der Gesundheitsförderung und der Prävention, Klasse2000, Nationaler Aktionsplan Gesundheitskompetenz, Ulla Schmidt
Klartext Translated 