The area of Health Promotion has been investigated numerous of times since the concept was introduced by WHO in the political area in 1948. Health Promotion has been used in many areas of social work ever since, and in Denmark the talk of Health Promotion has been a part of the political debate since 1984. This project brings into focus the EAT-program which is developed by the Copenhagen House of Food in collaboration with the Children and Youth Committee in Copenhagen. The background for the development of the initiative was a political desire to achieve a healthy food culture among all pupils within Copenhagen municipality schools, and to reduce social inequalities in health. Currently 32 municipality schools participate in the EAT food-program and there are also seven ‘food-schools’ within Copenhagen municipality. The average daily sales of EAT is around 20 percent and is primarily sold through an online system, where meals can be pre-ordered by parents. To reach out to the City of Copenhagen's poorest families to benefit from the EAT-initiative, the Copenhagen municipality 2013 budget has set aside seven million DDK annually to EAT subsidy-scheme. In this way, the 2000 poorest children in Copenhagen now also have the opportunity to get lunch for pennies or free. A lunch-meal costs between 19 and 24 DDK depending on how often they order, but with the subsidy-scheme the price is regulated after parents' income. This will ensure that the lowest social group also has the opportunity to get a healthy and nutritious lunch-meal during school. We consider EAT as an exciting and health-promoting initiative. An interesting approach, which has the opportunity to embrace many children from different social strata, and thereby has the chance to point in the right direction towards reducing social inequalities in health. The new subsidy-scheme makes it now available to all children, regardless of parental income. But the question is: Why is there still a lot of parents, who do not choose EAT? Thus we have narrowed down the area of interest: Namely the parents’ choice of EAT throughout our investigation. In the assignment we have chosen do a ‘case study’ on the basis of two different primary schools: Husum School and Hanssted School. We have selected the schools based on their purchases of EAT and further on the basis of some socio-economic conditions. To get a better understanding of why some parents do not choose to enroll their children to the EAT-program, we have analyzed the theories of Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens and made use of Empowerment strategies as well as the setting-perspective. We believed that this could provide us with an overall framework and a better insight into underlying causes of why some parents opt out of EAT. Through our research, we found that the EAT-program alone clearly cannot change the food culture within schools, thus some parents opt out of it.When analyzing the EAT-program based on a setting perspective, one can say that if operators in favors are not included in the development of EAT they may drop out, if the program, at the same time do not serve their needs. According to Bourdieu, the parents' choice of enrolling their children in the EAT-program will be structurally dependent. Based on Giddens' theory, the reflexive parents will be able to assess EAT and the choice will therefore take place outside of structures.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Samfundsvidenskabelig Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||23 jan. 2014|
- Social ulighed i sundhed
- EAT skolemad