Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To think it's absolutely ridiculous that parents can't choose their own children's lunch?

(126 Posts)
annabanana84 Thu 26-Sep-13 08:37:30

I've read a few threads on here now where parents have been told they can't put chocolate/fizzy pop/whatever the fuck they want into their childrens lunchboxes. Am I alone in thinking this is absolutely absurd? Why on earth is the school taking away the parents choice? I remember once a week, as a treat, I would be sent with jam butties, a packet of crisps, a kit kat and a panda pop cherryade, and the school didn't bat an eyelid. Why do schools feel they have to do this, I wonder?

BuntyPenfold Thu 26-Sep-13 08:46:39

Because some families are reckoned to need more guidance, the obesity crisis and all that.

I feel strongly that the schools need better role models, since an enormously obese MTA told my very thin DS not to eat his crisps. Can't they hear the Year 6 giggling?

skyeskyeskye Thu 26-Sep-13 08:47:47

Sorry, but I agree with schools doing this, because they have a duty to promote healthy eating. They teach it in lessons and in our school they grow their own veg and cook it and eat it at Harvest Festival time.

Children do not need to eat sweets and chocolate and crisps every day of the week for their school dinner and some parents do not have the sense to realise that. Some people think it is ok to stuff them with junk every day.

Also, as pointed out on the other threads, sweets can have an adverse affect on some children's behaviour therefore they should not eat them for dinner as they could be hyper all afternoon.

I really don't see that it is a great hardship for children to have to wait until after 4pm before you can give them some sweets if you want to.

redexpat Thu 26-Sep-13 08:51:04

Because although you had reasonable parents, that is sadly not the case for all children. There really are parents who send their children to school with a chocolate bar and nothing else. It's another form of child protection.

livinginwonderland Thu 26-Sep-13 08:52:30

Because there are parents who would send their kids in with a bag of crisps, some sweets and a bar of chocolate everyday if it wasn't for these guidelines. You can still give them whatever you want at home!

Pobblewhohasnotoes Thu 26-Sep-13 08:53:02

Because some parents have no concept of healthy eating or what constitutes lunch.

SoupDragon Thu 26-Sep-13 08:53:41

Why do schools feel they have to do this, I wonder?

Because some parents are thick and some children are therefore vulnerable.

ubik Thu 26-Sep-13 08:53:53

aye they have duty to promote healthy eating...until the private company doing the catering starts flogging double choc muffins to the kids at break time and stops the children setting up their own tuck shop Schools seem to wash their hands of 'healthy' at that point.

ClaraOswald Thu 26-Sep-13 08:54:23

Because there obviously enough parents who don't actually care what they shove in to the kids lunch boxes that this interference is deemed necessary.

There are plenty of instances where some children would have brought a pack of chocolate biscuits for Lunch. Every day.

Fizzy pop is not appropriate for children to have regularly. Anyone really, not just children. Same goes for crisps, chocolate and sweet sandwiches.

How is the human race supposed to make decent choices about eating healthily if they are not educated about doing so?

It is nothing new by the way- for at least the last ten years I would say the majority of schools have had some form of guidelines for packed lunches and have monitored them as well.

Davsmum Thu 26-Sep-13 08:54:55

I agree skyeskyeskye,

Chocolate and fizzy pop and crisps is not a lunch - and kids don't 'need' them. Surely lunch should be something with nutritional value and be healthy.
Course you get the parents who will say their kids 'won't' eat anything else and they 'have to eat something'

pianodoodle Thu 26-Sep-13 08:59:07

I don't like it either seems patronising to sensible folk.

I suppose the rule's there for the benefit of kids with dopey parents though, so if it helps them it's worth it.

StanleyLambchop Thu 26-Sep-13 08:59:38

Have you seen the staff room though? Ours is packed full of cake & chocolate- the staff need to set a better example.

Also, you find promoting healthy eating goes out the window when they want to raise money and so have weekly cake sales!

Our school menu also consists of a stodgy pudding with custard- everyday! Why is sweets once a week any worse?

our school has minimal rules, they only ask that we send no fizzy drinks and no sweets.
I can live with that, they don't get sweets for lunch at home either and fizzy drinks only if we are out usually
I wouldn't care if they banned chocolate too. They can eat crap as much as they like the rest of the time if that's what you choose.

TimeAgainForWellies Thu 26-Sep-13 09:01:43

I am all over the place on this one. i agree that a once in a week treat is a good thing- I used to live for Friday's when i was allowed a chocolate bar, but equally i agree with the other posters who say that alot of parents simply do not know what is a healthy lunch, or who do not care. When i was settling DC2 into pre-school i stayed for the morning and was pretty horrified at some of the packed lunches- literally a chocolate bar and a pack of quavers for one little 3 year ol girl. Our pre-school 'recommends' but does not prohibit.

Mind you... my Dcs get an alpro chocolate soy pudding for lunchtime dessert every day so perhaps I am not one to talk......

nonmifairidere Thu 26-Sep-13 09:06:03

Yes, what idiots they are. Everyone knows that a sugar and salt filled, fibre free diet is optimum for healthy child development and establishing a healthy attitude to diet in adult life.

pinkdelight Thu 26-Sep-13 09:06:47

"Because some parents are thick and some children are therefore vulnerable."

Sadly, SoupDragon has it. Who do you think is feeding the overweight kids shit food? It's irrelevant what you had in your packed lunch as a kid. Just because you had an enlightened caring parent, doesn't mean everyone does. Frankly I think it's bonkers to have sweets at lunchtime.

havingamadmoment Thu 26-Sep-13 09:08:43

I normally send an "OK" lunch. They have fruit etc but the often have crisps as well. I have never been told they are not allowed crisps but one year on dds birthday I put a slice of birthday cake in her box and it was taken off her. I know she had some at home but I just wanted to give her a nice little treat!

YABU
You can treat your children at home and on weekends. That's what I do. Loads of parents don't know what a healthy lunchbox should look like and need guidelines. They can hardly say that the guidelines only apply to ignorant parents, so they apply to all. Fine by me and if DS had packed lunches I'd abide by them.

The silly thing though is that children on school dinners have pudding every day. This week DS has had chocolate pudding and custard, and flapjack as two examples. I doubt the packed lunches would be allowed to contain similar.

TimeAgainForWellies Thu 26-Sep-13 09:11:47

True about the school dinner desserts. At our pre-school they have things liked 'iced cinnamon buns' and 'chocolate cookies' every single day.

angelos02 Thu 26-Sep-13 09:11:53

Because somewhere down the line people forgot that schools/teachers are there to teach & that is all. Now schools are expected to provide breakfast clubs, show children how to use a knife & fork etc etc.

fuzzpig Thu 26-Sep-13 09:33:40

YABU, I think basic rules like no chocolate, no sweets, no fizzy drinks are essential.

I am curious though as to what the free meals for infants will look like as we will have 2 years of this (DS just started reception) - I'd be grateful to save money and for a hot meal, but if it's not as healthy as what I could provide in a lunch box, is it going to be worth it... hmm.

FWIW, DH and I agreed to make more effort with the contents of our DCs' lunch boxes, and stop putting in stuff like cheestrings, peperami, crisps, mini cheddars, cereal bars etc which we had been using as time savers. I thought the DCs would complain but they haven't even noticed that we've stopped buying stuff like that, and don't say "but my friend jimmy has such and such" as I thought they would. They now get a sandwich/wrap/crackers with protein filling, a pot of veg, a pot of fruit, a frube and a bottle of water. Now they eat it all whereas when we were putting the extras in, they'd be eaten first and the healthy stuff would come home uneaten.

They get snacky treaty things at home and don't miss it at school.

Pobblewhohasnotoes Thu 26-Sep-13 09:40:13

Now schools are expected to provide breakfast clubs, show children how to use a knife & fork etc etc

Wtf is wrong with breakfast clubs? Some of us have to be at work at 7am.

MummyPig24 Thu 26-Sep-13 09:45:19

I agree with the packed lunch rules. Feed your kids whatever crap you (general you) want but at least they will get a healthy lunch if parents follow these rules.

Some families need guidance when it comes to nutrition and schools are trying to help. There is no harm in that. Do kids really NEED chocolate/crisps/pop for lunch?

YABU

My DS has a healthy packed lunch despite eating a very limited amount of foods. I am often surprised when I help out at school over the sheer volume of the packed lunch, and the absolute junk packed into them. Some parents either don't know or aren't bothered and so the school have to step in.

DeWe Thu 26-Sep-13 09:54:33

But it's also so you don't get at home:
"It's not fair X ALWAYS has sweets in her lunch. EVERYONE else has crisps and I'm the ONLY one who doesn't have a fizzy drink..."

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now