Push to ban homemade lunches - agree or disagree?

[fitoverforty]

This frightens me:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... food-fight" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The picture in that article shows white bread, processed cheese, deep fried tater tots, canned (in sugar no doubt) pears.
The lunches I pack for son everyday, are much healthier than what they are serving at school. I do not agree with schools infringing on right to feed child what I feel is best for him. So instead of him coming to school with a sandwich made on WW bread, no processed cheese, almonds or pecans, sliced apple or oranges - he will be forced to eat (and me to pay for) a prepared lunch that someone else decides is healthy and that I have no control over what goes in it? This to me is wrong.

[Boss Man]

Total load of crap. It's that simple.

If a school wants to not permit people, to give their kids loads of junk as a homemade lunch, then fair enough, but if you want your kid to have sandwiches not cafateria food, you should be allowed.

primary school never allowed packed lunches the first year I was there, (80-81), but because I kicked up a stink about what they served, I was permitted to go home for mine. The second year the idea was brought in and kept.

I think a lot of schools at that time though did do that regards having no allowance for homemade lunches.

The school used to have a policy of two set meals, one with a bigger portion and about 2x the price. This was kept for the first 2 years, when a cafateria style system was introduced in final year, (86-87), only because most kids in the first 2 years, hadn't learned to count money, so it was felt if they had a fixed price structure to work off, with the two meal system, it would be simpler.

I couldn't tell you what they do now as I simply don't know.

However if that schools authority in Chicago is serving what I saw there, with some Sugary Ketchup, skanky looking Cheese, fried things to dip in your red sludge and some stuff that looked like yellow strips of Chicken, then heaven help kids eating that, because the carrots and Milk will be of little consolation.

Absolutely retarded decision and it could just increase the risk of health issues for kids, because there's zero control for parents over what kids get.

Regulating a parents ability, to provide homemade rubbish for kids is all fair and good, but turning it into a food nazi exercise isn't.

Plus why do it, when it just increases what the school spends. Let parents make thier own kids lunches, save money on food budgets and then allocate it for other things like purchasing of more exercise books, stationary, art materials, P.E. equipment, or possibly computers to name but a few things.

All you'd need to do is have a form to give to parents between terms / school years, registering their childs interest in school lunches and if they need any kind of financial assistance if they are low income people. Then you match the number of names against the number of pupils in your school and work out what percentage of pupils will require school meals and budget for the food accordingly.

The only slight discrepancy is if one or two forms never get through the postal system, or some parents forget to fill the forms in, but stipulating a 7 day period for returns, would be one way to hasten the forms back, especially when they're being sent out prior to 2-3 week holiday periods, as too much delaying could then result in some kids having nothing.

This blanket canvessing though, would be an easy thing to do, so just do that I say.

parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

1. How would he know, do they let peole like him taste it first before the school year starts? If something had a bit too much Sugar, Salt or Fat in it, would he know? Could he tell the difference between fries cooked in Sesame Oil and Fries cooked in Saturates, just by looking or maybe even tasting?

2. There is control over the food if you bring it from home, you control it. I'm guessing he may have never made his own lunch very often. I wouldn't be surprised if gets his wife to do his for him, because he's afraid of wrecking a loaf of bread or cutting himself.

Either that or he eats Subway, thereby avoiding the make your own lunch scenario, or the possibility of having to make his own kids lunch and not having the foggiest what to do.

[Boss Man]

I agree those schools are probably underfunded,which is more reason to let kids bring their lunches, because then you can save money, not having to provide so much in-house nutrition.

Unless homemade lunches drastically cut the number of kids who ate at schools and that in some way cost the schools some kind of funding, I could see why they might be tempted to prevent homemade lunches, but otherwise I don't. You'd have two choices anyway, which is the kind of choice people should get.

Still it is something that irks me a bit about your government. You have underfunded, understaffed schools, becasue of financial shortages, but hey, as long as your officials are well paid and there's enough missiles and nukes to spare, well that's just fine.

You kind of wonder when a Senator sits at a table eating Lobster, if he's thinking of some 8 year old from Alabama, that might have a pot of yoghurt and a carrot stick to eat and feeling guilty.

Then again, I'm guessing not. Though to some extent that attitude would be mirrored in Britain too. Not that I'm saying richer people should eat like poorer people to show solidarity, it's just an observation.

[scottgaran]

Got to say this one gets me, and I blame it on the do gooders that think they know what is better for someone's kids more than the parents. Thats all we need is more government intrusion into our lives. It is unfortunate that some people can not afford to send their kids to school with better lunches, but that is life. Why should someone that is more fortunate have to go along with something that they don't want just because other people can't do it. It is already happening in other areas of live. They Dayton PD was forced to lower their entry standards because many people in that area could not pass the test. Good plan, lower the standars instead of expecting more from people. I am going to stop before I mash fingers into the keyboard!
Scott

[scottgaran]

OK, maybe I was rambling! point about the whole police thing was that as we get fatter and less educated, society wants us to adjust to them instead of them working on themeselves. Why should the government dictate what YOUR KIDS should eat. Isn't that part of being a parent. I am all for schools providing a hopefully healthy lunch, but am against the gov't stepping in and dictating what your kids must eat.

The ironic thing is that the schools would make an adjustment if someone needed certain foods for religious reasons but wouldn't if you said I am a health nut and I want them to eat this! It's just another example of the way society is failing and trying to drag everyone down with them. Endeth of sermon!

Scott

[fitoverforty]

point about the whole police thing was that as we get fatter and less educated, society wants us to adjust to them instead of them working on themeselves.

Kinda goes back to the whole "make wider airplane seats" idea. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

Why should the government dictate what YOUR KIDS should eat. Isn't that part of being a parent. I am all for schools providing a hopefully healthy lunch, but am against the gov't stepping in and dictating what your kids must eat.

That's point. I agree with having schools provide only healthy lunch foods for the school lunch programs - but that doesn't give them the right to take away right to be in control of what I feed child for lunch. I like making his lunch, packing a little bit of "love" in every meal -whether it's sliced apples, or roasted almonds, or even his sandwiches with the crust cut off just the way he likes them, it's sending him to school with a visual reminder that he is loved and cared for - and it does make a difference and is noticed by not only him, but those around him too. I think that is a positive thing.
Okay, now I'm rambling....
When I was a kid, mom made lunch everyday for myself and brothers. Everyday is was pretty much the same thing - PB&J, Lay's snack bag of chips, apple, milk. Not exactly the healthiest by any standard - but none of us ever had a weight problem. We played outside after homework was done until forced to come in, riding bikes, running races, playing hide & seek, etc. BEING ACTIVE. No t.v., no ipods, no Wii, no Nintendo, or Xbox - just a good pair of sneakers, a trusty hand me down bike and a few neighborhood friends....good times. Our kids need to be moving, active and engaged with other kids doing the same - not stuck in front of the t.v., or computer for endless hours "playing games".
Sorry for the rant.

[fit-fanatic-2025]

Did you guys watch I think it's called food nation?? it's on right before dancing with the stars. It's kind of itneresting. He wants to go into LA school district and give suggestions on improving the school lunch. He was talking about hamburger last night and how they make fast food ground beef. Gross I tell you! He then asked do you want your kids eating that??

I love burgers but will only eat, i'm not even sure what anymore. Not to mention what the animals are put through in the process.

I disagree with a ban on homemade lunches. Personally sounds like a way for schools to make more money to me. I haven't read the article yet though. goverment shouldn't be the deciding factor in telling you what your kids eat. Obviously with the way school lunches have been made for years, gov donesnt always make the right decision on that end.

[fit-fanatic-2025]

It's Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. He did the first season in Huntington, WV. I think it's still on Hulu.

Again, the folks in Chicago are claiming that the lunches they're providing are healthier than other options. Whether or not that's true, I don't know, but I really doubt they're going to force the kids to eat crap. They must have known there would have been backlash and investigation into the nutritional content of the food.

You should watch Food, Inc., if you haven't already.

I'm glad that they are claiming their lunches are healthier but i still think they have no right to ban home lunches. I will watch Food inc. One of these days. I'm kind of scared too.

[fit-fanatic-2025]

If they are a private school i agree, but not a public one. Then tax money is supporting that institution and if i have a child i don't think they have a right to limit what child can eat. Some people in public schools can't afford to give their kids lunch money. And may not qualified for subsidized tickets or be embarrased to take it. I think it's an invasion of people's right to parent really.

I need to read that article later today! I'm only going off opinion and the main argument. I haven't read the article. nice to hear opinions though. I'm doing this in between working so i haven't had a chance to read all the opinions and articles. So if i'm goinng off on what the article is about sorry.

[fit-fanatic-2025]

I still disagree. If they want to fight obesity by all means have healthy options at the school, and make it easier for people that can't afford meals to be able to pay for those meals if they want too, Also have some healthy classes about nutrition and don't cut physical education classes. But it's the parents responsiblity on what their children should eat ultimately, good or bad. Home lunches shouldn't be banned (in opinion. )

[Boss Man]

Poor parents (out of necessity) feed their kids cheap food, which is leading to childhood obesity. If schools can prevent kids from bringing junk food on campus and thus can reduce the obesity rate, why shouldn't they?

One thing to do is educate poor parents on better choices. They may not be aware of things they can do. Bulk buy cereal and Eggs. buy stuff on 3 for 2's, 2 for 1's, bogoffs, percentage discounts, bargain bin, loss leader deals.

Some places will also do discounts on stuff with a use by date of that day.

Some parents may not be aware of these things, or don't consider them, Shopping around, I.E. going from one local shop to another, that might be a couple of hundred yards from the next, may give thme an idea of which shops are generally chepaer on certain things, which means they can then shop in 2 or 3 local places, and save a little as well.

Lower income families could be made aware that schools offering better meals than they can provide do so, then the option is there. Any kid who wants to eat better food and is forced to bring crap to school, by some parent who thinks the school is dictating their parenting, thne has a problem with the parent not the school.

A parent being offered good kids meals that won't impact seriously if at all on their own finances and then forces their kid to eat crap, is not being a very good parent, because why stop your kid eating better, that would make no sense, unless they had to give the kids money for stuff they coudln't afford, only then would it make some sense.

So if you have two options, homemade or schoolmade, it gives people choice, which is right.

Effectively saying it's our way or the highway, restricts freedom of choice and is not very democratic, it then becomes beurocratic, dictatorial and totalitarian, bordering some might say on fascistic.

That's similar to being vegetarian and not letting your kids eat meat, which might potentially lead to them being bullied or being thought of as weird, by other kids that would'nt understand until they were older.

However I digress somewhat.

If low income parents are educated about how to buy food more shrewdly and made aware schools may do better food for kids than they do, then as long as they aren't paying an amount per meal which is too high for them, they would be able to let their kid(s) have the option and choose to exercise that right, thereby not infringing on those who want to make homemade lunches.

Education to children could be encouraged too, to help them understand why the choices at school are there anyway.

I think a 5 year old could understand, when you put some pictures of fast food in a circle with a sulky fat guy in the middle and the word BAD in big letters at the top and also understand when you have a circle of pictures of healthy food, a smiling slim person in the middle and the word GOOD at the top.

You wouldn't need to bamboozle them with stuff about antioxidents, flavanoids, micronutrients etc, just do something simple like that and tell them briefly why the bad food made Mr Sulky fat and sulky.

That way they realise why the school provides good meals and can tell their parents, or go home with a leaflet that has the same pictures on it and a brief description of what the school food is there to do, to make parents aware of that choice and why it's there.

That way as stated, only a bad parent would force their kid to continue eating rubbish, if they didn't want to and it was avoidable.

[Boss Man]

I agree it won't work for all, but some may want the understanding or ways to save money, but not know or realise how.

At least even if the teachings positively influence 10%, it's better than nothing and relatively inexpensive pamphlets or a local free session run by a knowledgeable individual, might just help some people and the beenfit of either option is, if they're free you'll get more uptake of people that might want this knowledge.

[Boss Man]

I agree it's not easy, but if you give people free opportunities to learn about change, it should theoretically have some impact on people however small, so for that reason it's still a sensible thing, unless the cost of such thing to the provider(s), makes it non-viable.