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

[annabanana84]

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?

[PrincessScrumpy]

Treats not years

[MadeOfStarDust]

Parents still have a choice OP.... any child can be taken out of school for lunch.

If you want to keep feeding them crap, then take them home and do it...

[Wheresmycaffeinedrip]

The only problem I have with it is when what they serve is far worse than what they are banning. For instance two or three squares of plain chocolate along side a healthy lunch wouldn't be allowed. However high sugar yogurts, cereal bars with icing/yogurt and dried fruit wonder things are allowed and the school can serve flap jack and custard.

The requests need to make sense.

[StanleyLambchop]

any child can be taken out of school for lunch.

Except my DCs school made it really difficult when I tried to take them home for lunch. Not all schools are the same!

[Goldenhandshake]

I can absolutely see the logic in 'policing lunchboxes', however it does piss me off when I see the school dinners menu and they have daily desserts such as apple crumble and custard, viennese cookie and icecream etc. Surely there is far more sugar, fat and calories in that than a two finger kitkat I may want to add to DD's lunchbox as a treat once a week?

'Healthy' should not apply to lunch boxes only imo.

[roundtable]

Oh yes, re taking children home. Just after the healthy schools thing came in, and the school I was in had excellent homemade school lunches, a family took umbrage and started to take their dc 'home' regularly.

They were actually going to Mcdonalds, as their dc would come in and tell everyone what they had for lunch!

[TheOrginalPoster]

There is nothing wrong with promoting and educating on healthy eating. It certainly makes us all more mindful of what our children eat.

However it is so over the top. Completely demonising certain types food is wrong too. I have seen people on here talking about fruit as if its poison which is just adsurd.

Why dont schools think of implementing "treat Fridays". Where for just one day a week the lunch boxes are more lax, the rest of the week being focused solely healthy choices. Im not suggesting children bring in last nights leftover pizza on treat Fridats, but maybe a small slice of cake after a healthy sandwich or salad.

I also think no child should ever be made to feel humilated, guilty or upset for what the parents have put up in the lunchbox. The parent alone should take the flack. It is the parents responsibility not the child's.

[Ifcatshadthumbs]

My fondest memory of working in a school was the parent who brought in a happy meal everyday for her child. Unfortunately it was the tip of a very large iceberg

[MadeOfStarDust]

But roundtable those parents have reserved the right to "feed their children what they want" not what the school rules... which is what some folks on these threads always seem to bang on about....

so good on them for sticking to their principles and making their lunchtime "time sacrifice" to see their principles through.... though they could have chosen better in my humble opinion, though who am I to judge...

and the school can make it difficult but (in England certainly) school consists of two daily sessions - one in the morning the other in the afternoon which the children should attend. In between is the hinterland of lunchtime....

the kids do not have to attend, the teachers do not have to attend, and the other interesting fact to consider is that because of this there are NO MINIMUM staffing levels over lunchtime other than stating "safety needs to be considered...."

[ubik]

Mine always have school dinners. It's generally lentil soup/scotch broth, some sort of hoy meal: curry, pizza, burger, hot dog, steak pie, and then frozen yoghurt or jelly. Seems fine. portions are small though.

I'd rather they had a hot dinner than a packed lunch, it does seem healthier.

[StanleyLambchop]

Why dont schools think of implementing "treat Fridays". Where for just one day a week the lunch boxes are more lax, the rest of the week being focused solely healthy choices. Im not suggesting children bring in last nights leftover pizza on treat Fridats, but maybe a small slice of cake after a healthy sandwich or salad.

Yes, why not. It would probably be more healthy than the fish fingers & chips that the school canteen serve up (supposedly 'hand made from scratch', but look suspiciously like Birds Eye!)

[doorkeeper]

My kid's old primary school did do this - you weren't allowed crisps in your lunch box, except on Wednesdays, when you were.

[Nanny0gg]

Some children are sent in with dreadful lunches because the parents don't have a clue/can't be bothered. But sometimes it is because the child has a very restricted diet because of food avoidance issues and the lunchbox may not be a 'healthy' as it should be in an ideal world. However, if the child is actually going to eat something you have to give them something they will actually eat.

And fizzy drinks are also banned because of the shocking mess they make when they explode spill.

[roundtable]

Personally Stardust, I feel that when a child is morbidly obese and needs to wear legging under their school dress otherwise they get sores from chafing; suffers from constipation/ diarrhoea and recurring stomachache then someone/people need to intervene.

The example I'm giving isn't a one off but I understand why people feel it's a bit ott, until they work in that environment usually.

[BucketsnSpades]

I think in this day and age it must only be a small minority of parents who don't know the difference between healthy fresh food and less healthy packaged choices. But the fact is that healthy fresh food goes off really quickly, requires more preparation and it makes a big mess in the kitchen. Crisps come in handy one portion packs, as do fruit winders, cheese strings etc and they have long use by dates. I think the rules are great because they stop parents making a habit of using these junk food options.

[Mrsc020987]

Nope because some parents tell their children things like eating fruit every day will make you sick but sweets won't and there is no sugar in sprite......wtf

[roundtable]

The fruit thing is bizarre, some people get very upset by fruit consumption. Odd.

Tryharder said about mil being a postwar baby, you were right! It's interesting talking to my mum ,also a post war baby, about food. She's always struggled with her weight/healthy eating and she told me about remembering her gran/mum pouring liquid glucose on practically everything she ate. They were terrified of going hungry, a fat child was a healthy child to them. I think we're still affected by those post war feelings and it's going to take time to improve.

We always want things to change instantly as we're the generation of thing happening straight away but something's take time IMO.

[StanleyLambchop]

Personally Stardust, I feel that when a child is morbidly obese and needs to wear legging under their school dress otherwise they get sores from chafing; suffers from constipation/ diarrhoea and recurring stomachache then someone/people need to intervene

Maybe. But then if the alternative is stodgy puddings and fish fingers from the school canteen then that will not help either. The schools need to be consistent with what they police- starting with their own offerings!

[roundtable]

Excuse the spelling, autocorrect!

[TheWomanTheyCallJayne]

Nannyogg makes a good point. After three children who happily eat most things I have one who won't eat following a stomach problem a year or so ago.
He will eat dry crackers and fruit and yoghurt so in the days he won't eat the school dinners (he's just started) that's what he is going to get. Better he eats something than the nothing he's had on the few days he's refused the school dinner. He's tired enough after a full day without surviving on an empty stomach.
If he was a child who would only eat pizza and crisps then I would feed him pizza and crisps while we worked on it as at least then he's eating something.

[roundtable]

I agree Stanley. Fortunately the schools I'm referring to had excellent school lunches. Often frozen yogurts/fruit/yoghurt as puddings, huge salad bars, balanced lunches etc. Cakes weren't that often served.

Perhaps that's not the norm across the country?

[zatyaballerina]

Anybody who gives their child chocolate, crisps and a can of coke for lunch deserves sterilisation a patronising lecture.

Insisting on healthy lunches means that junk feeder parents are forced to make up at least one non shit meal a day, it means the kids will get at least one meal that isn't horrific for their body, brain, teeth etc and by seeing all their classmates eating relatively healthily they learn that guzzling crap isn't normal or acceptable.

They should be equally strict on what meals are provided by the school too. No junk should mean just that.

[ICameOnTheJitney]

My DDs tell me most of the other kids in their class bring crisps daily...others bring those shitty "fruit roll ups" which are nothing but sweets with fruit juice added.

This is a "naice" school in a "naice" area....so I'm not sure the issue is only in parts of the country where people aren't well educated. The vast majority of parents in my DC school are proffesionals.

[roundtable]

Zatya, I think that's a bit harsh. Most parents are trying to do the best they can, with the knowledge they have.

Education is the key and that doesn't happen overnight.

[ICameOnTheJitney]

Ubik hot dogs, burgers and jelly is not healthier than wholemeal sandwiches or pasta with some fresh fruit.