Still the statement is rather ambiguous. If you mean ranking the three issues by their priority, I am sure that good parents should first of all feed their child and protect it from health risks (and, generally speaking, to try and rise it healthy) and only afterwards to plan its education. The worst is to overload it with learning to a measure making the latter a health risk factor - a mistake of parents and educators we observe too often. It is when education comes before health indeed, and it is too bad for both.

Well, I´m not an expert about this issue, but I enjoy the question...

I think that there are two answers which may be considered at different approaches. Considering the individual (idiographic) approach, I think that the order is the following: food -> health -> education ; Because whithout a good nutrition during childhood it may be difficult achieve a good health condition and yet more difficult to achieve a good learning performance (mainly for a sick individual). In the nomothetic viewpoint, the order seems to be different, with education coming first: education -> food -> health, once without education, the access to food does not necessarily means a good nutrition and consequently, a good health at population level.

Prior to engaging in the topics being educated on, the brain and body must have sustainance i.e. food, water and rest.

Once food has been absorbed by the body, and a good night's rest, the brain will then have energy to learn whichever subject presented.

Thus I've eaten breakfast first.

We need to look after our health first before we attempt to tackle anything else in life.

1. food

2. education.

Education could be about our health but our health must be dealt with first thus breakfast or snack/meal before tackling the day.

I would consider food & health before education . At birth , breast milk for the first six months followed by healthy & balanced food is essential for brain development . Immunisation & treatment of common Infectious diseases in early childhood is vital for healthy mental & physical development . Education is essential for survival in adulthood . Poverty in simple terms, is non availability of food , health care & education . An educated family would take care of all three of their children to improve the quality of life of their future generation .

Food before any thing. The rest can come after eating.

Every thing needs source of enery. Human too...

I can't work without drinking my coffe

I can't be in love without eating very good...

This is life...

However we must initially survive first e.g. An apple/grape from a tree prior to any health education

Assumptions are critical here. Assuming adequate nutrition and over time (both conditions are important), the sequence is clearly: education leads to health and good nutrition.

When you say "comes before", do you mean "implies better" ?

Even humans have a logic thinking, it is not a perfect one, because any human got emotions and memories which are not logical. So, even with a good education you can smoke, you can eat anything you know is wrong, you can become anorexic, and so on.

From an individual point of view, healthy food is essential to survive and the more natural the food is, the healthier it is, so no education seems required for that.

From a society's point of view, I would say: yes, food was there before any civilization, and I'm tempted to say that education (by schooling) has leaded to a health system (maybe not a healthier one).

I think there is an artefact where people need to learn again what is a good nutrition. No education is needed for that, this is much more a feeling process (to learn to listen to your body and your needs, not your wishes) than a theoretical one.

Still the statement is rather ambiguous. If you mean ranking the three issues by their priority, I am sure that good parents should first of all feed their child and protect it from health risks (and, generally speaking, to try and rise it healthy) and only afterwards to plan its education. The worst is to overload it with learning to a measure making the latter a health risk factor - a mistake of parents and educators we observe too often. It is when education comes before health indeed, and it is too bad for both.

In these discussions I use the word education in its most comprehensive meaning, not just schooling. A huge amount of evidence proves that learning/education starts at birth and probably before that. The infants brain grows physically as a function of experience- any experience- not just formal instruction. This early brain growth is the basis for all future learning and ability to benefit from more formal education. A vast amount of literature supports the concept that the more education you have, the healthier you will be and the longer you will live.

For a comprehensive treatment of this subject, see our paper "Can Education Policy be Health Policy" in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 30, No 6, December 2005. The paper is freely available to download on my Research Gate page

(David Morton Low)

Berthold Brecht: "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral."

free translation: "First you eat, then you get moral"

It is rather "The grub comes first, and only then - morals"

So interesting! Nobody has upvoted my answer to the original question. but 2 colleagues liked my translation from Brecht's German into colloquial English. Indeed, dear Olaf, I am sure that you know: while zu essen is the same as to eat, zu fressen is something more vulgar and ill-manered (like to guzzle). However, the citation itself is quite appropriate and I've just voted it up.

Boris, I concur with your initial answer

Oh Thank you, dear Christine!

Hi Yanick and contributors, the way the question is phrased seems to ask whether the reader agrees to the sequence of importance; food first then education and after that, health.

I agree that food is basic for survival; but there must be a measure of health. Otherwise the food would not guarantee survival. As for education (and morals and religion), I see as food for the mind and soul.

Just to share with you all - one of the things I learn from the Bible: '..the body is more than food.' Have a good day.

Boris, I concur because we must eat to sustain our physical self to function first prior to education about our health.

e.g. we use the energy from breakfast to even attempt to do anything else such as WALKING OR educating ourselves on health

"We need to look after our health first before we attempt to tackle anything else in life.

1. food

2. education.

Education could be about our health but our health must be dealt with first thus breakfast or snack/meal before tackling the day. " (My statement 10 days ago)

Dear Christine, in fact these 3 issues aro so closely intertwined and reciprocally dependent that it is not too wise to try and rank them. And still, to be healthy and educated (or. generally speaking, to think, to learn, to teach, to study and so on) one should TO BE and it would not be possible without balanced food. So a normal mother first gives her breast to her newborn baby and is concerned with its sucking enough of her milk rather than with a school it will be going to when time comes.

or rather that should have been a non-numerical list rather than looking like a ranking

I was trying to list what other factors there could be

I absolutely concur with your above statement

Here in Brazil, the federal government has given financial support to the population below the poverty line (by means of the program called "Bolsa Família"). Such providence removed million of Brazilian people from misery. On the other hand, the governmental actions to improve the acess of such population to education, as well as, to improve the quality of public education in Brazil are yet weak. Now it has been often discussed in the media that population has access to food but, without a good nutritional orientation, the people are spending bad the money. The consumption of processed food rich in fat and carbohydrates never were so high before. The Brazilian people are becoming sick. Complications attributed to diabetes mellitus, high levels of LDL cholesterol and high sodium consumption present a remarkable expansion in the last decade.

So, I would to stress that the discussion here depends whether our focus is an unique individual or an entire population... Several disagreements observed among previous comments can be attributed to this undefinition of approach...

In that case, for Brazilian people, if possible, feed them grains/fresh food initially and educate them to eat the balanced diet fruits, vegetables, meat.

Alongside seeing how happy they are in enjoying these foods, we also educate them immediately regarding the downsides to the body if they ate only processed food and carbohydrates.

•Eat regular meals – and don’t forget breakfast. If you skip meals, you’ll be more likely to eat high fat, high sugar food when you’re hungry. Planning meals ahead can help you ensure that you eat regular meals

•Eat more fibre-containing foods such as oats, wheat, bran, legumes, vegetables and fruit by including these in your meals and snacks

•Drink plenty of water. Water is the best and cheapest drink. Water provides the fluid we need, without the added kilojoules or caffeine found in many other drinks

Things to limit

•Consider your portion sizes

•Eat less processed food

•Limit your alcohol intake if you choose to drink. Alcohol is energy dense and can contribute to weight gain

•Limit your intake of ‘extra foods’ like unhealthy snacks and take-away foods

http://www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/dietary-guidelines-lp

The portion size and how many times you eat in a day and size meals are listed on this page:

http://www.measureup.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/Portion+and+serving+sizes-lp

Therefore the population of Brazil needs to regularly DISCUSS the food they are eating, the alternatives and consequences of digesting the disgusting food compared to the nice healthy food eg apples, carrots, legumes, rice etc

and how much more productive they will become and a lot healthier they feel physically and mentally

because they will also get a more fulfilling sleep daily.

and demonstrate to the remainder of the population eg next door neighbours by ACTUALLY EATING THE HEALTHY FOOD ONLY and look down on the fatty foods

In this way, they will cut down their medical appointments and will not become susceptible to diabetes mellitus, LDL cholesterol, have lower levels of sodium in their body and thus they will be a LOT HEALTHIER.

When they spend the money, the Brazilian population should only buy fresh food eg lettuce, carrots, bananas and LIMIT how much they eat.

The Brazilian government should actually conduct classes regarding what foods they should be spending their money on and how to live life!

•Eat regular meals – and don’t forget breakfast. If you skip meals, you’ll be more likely to eat high fat, high sugar food when you’re hungry. Planning meals ahead can help you ensure that you eat regular meals

•Eat more fibre-containing foods such as oats, wheat, bran, legumes, vegetables and fruit by including these in your meals and snacks

•Drink plenty of water. Water is the best and cheapest drink. Water provides the fluid we need, without the added kilojoules or caffeine found in many other drinks

In Brazil, we need to eliminate all the lollies given to little kids etc - its TOO MUCH SUGAR

also take away all the cakes and give them meat / vegetable pies or grains

Paradoxical Question. Clever. Clearly one can't educate themselves (concentrate) without food in the smaller picture. In the bigger picture i.e. world hunger/poverty/malnourishment; Feeding Hungry,malnourished children is a priority over education. Logically, and from extensive established data if Mothers/women in both poor countries and less educated groups, are educated then their communities will more likely prosper and hence become healthier. They will be able to work, earn and hence provide food for their families, end inherent education ! Education & Health go hand in hand-they are synergistic elements to improving education and health overall.

Aha! Sounds like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. To borrow from an earlier post:

first you eat then you get self actualized.

Lyn I couldn't agree with you more.

I suppose we can have multiple interpretations, depending on whether emphasis is on comparing the two phrases within "the following statement," or we wish to consider the validity of each individual phrase. I would enjoy using this in a classroom for purposes of teaching public health / community health students.

Keith

Keith, I think that could result in a lively discussion.

I asked this question to a friend of mine and he said: "You need education to know what is good to eat and what's not." In a jungle, you will need to know two things to survive: what you can eat, and what is helpfuf to treat yourself.

I saw a program TV about education of orphan orang-utan, and this is exactly what they learn to them before let them go: plants they can eat and plants that can treat.

So I think there are educational AND intuitive food. But with education, you will learn really faster what's good for you, rather than try every plants before knowing which ones are usefull, which ones ar not.

Philosophical approach here is the good old empirical approach; isolate, replicate, classify. In your instance I think the answer may be better served by say; Foucault.

The combination of each of these in such a way as reflects the social, cultural and religious structures influencing one in concert with the individual's psychology, physical state, life experience and spirituality - to name but a few.

The answer could well be different again depending upon whose philosophy the question is approached from and answered with.

Audrey:" But with education, you will learn really faster what's good for you, rather than try every plants before knowing which ones are usefull, which ones are not."

If I am not mistaken, you mean not only material food, or do you? Yes, with education one will learn really faster what is good for him/her rather than try every possible folly oneself. Unfortunately young people are sure they know better (which may be true but not always) and are bound to do their own trials and to make their own errors. In this respect, young orangutans were much wiser but had far less chances of finding/learning anything really new. It remains to decide what is more important: stability or so-called progress - I think that now, in this century and on that unlucky planet the decision is rather uncertain for many. At any rate, for me.

It really reminds me of the question children learn to ask:

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

The framing of the question restricts the apparent options available to select to answer with. The 'power' of the question framer attempting to be implied into the 'right/correct' answer; one or the other of either of these two options are right - which one? Yet we know that the 'or' restricts the potential answers available within the question and by doing so nullifies any attempt at actually solving the general tenant of the question.

This process is mirrored here too in this question above. I therefore choose to recognise the 'power restrictions' being placed by the question setter and highlight these back to them. Once done so I can negotiate the terms within which the question is set by them, in so doing, both empower and enable myself to attempt to answer a similar question to the satisfaction of both they and I...

Food,cloths, and shelter are the basic need of all human beings.Peoplesall over centuries fighting for these sources. when these basic need are fullfilled then comes the upper level need( Moslows hierarchy of human needs)

Ah Jamshed, but then of course there is always Bradshaw's Taxonomy of Needs:

Who perceives the need? Is a professional or the client? Does the professional recognise the client's need or does the client recognise the identification of their need by the professional?

No doubt I'm sure you're aware of the multiple examples that disprove Maslow's Hierarchy of Need? A soldier in a conflict situation immediately disproves it. And what about religious faiths where they would starve rather than eat a certain form of plant/animal that others would. There's the effect of culture and the influences these have on an individual's responses to what they value as food, or shelter, or even clothing. Some of those time periods in Victorian Britain would certainly not recognise the bikini as a form of 'clothing'...

We're back to philosophy and it depends on the philosophical framework from within which one acts.