School lunchbox police

[gertyglossop]

My 4 year old daughter came home from school today and informed me that Miss X, her teacher, doesn't like it when children have chocolate in their lunchbox. She was visibly worried about it.

I have been packing her a fun sized (2 inch) Milky Way bar every day this week (last week it was mini ginger bread men, and some other small treat the week before). She also takes a wholemeal sandwich, small packet of savoury snacks and a piece of fruit. She knows that she must eat the sandwich and fruit before she eats the treat.

AIBU to resent:

A. The implication that I, as the parent, am unable to make suitable food choices for my child?

B. The complaint being made to my 4 year old child, rather than to me?

If you saw the amount of school dinner that goes uneaten, you'd have no doubt that it's definitely NOT loaded with salt or sugar The amount of desserts especially, that look lovely, but the kids don't like, is unreal.

Someone up thread rightly said that a biscuit a day won't kill you. However, in my experience, the parents who include packaged chocolate bars in lunch boxes also include crisps /savoury snacks which are high in salt and have no nutritional value at all, include no veg, little if any fruit, sugary drinks and also come to school with snacks such as haribo or cakes, and give high sugar diets at home. No one with any thought for nutrition would put a Milky Way in a child's lunchbox. Home made cakes are better as they do have some nutritional value in the eggs, butter, flour despite the sugar, but this too should be a treat, not a daily provision. You set a child's palate very young - if you feed them crap, they'll crave crap. And they will appreciate and enjoy the occasional treat.

Check out the advisory stuff on sugar levels. I've not checked recently (big statistical disclaimer) but I think that for adults it is about 35g currently and there is a suggestion from experts that this should be halved. A can of coke or a certain type of mainstream single portion ice cream can contain that amount of sugar (35g).

You can halve that recommended amount again for a small child. So 35g becomes 17.5g, and if the recommended amount for an adult is halved, then a child will end up with a recommended sugar intake of less than 10g. That's a small biscuit, no more. Think what you are giving your kids daily and then consider whether you know better than government experts who are desperately trying to reduce the number of malnourished, fat or obese kids who can't concentrate in class come 2pm because the massive sugar hit just turned into a sugar low.

I can see my DC friends (7 yo) becoming overweight already, they are the ones we see given lots of chocolate/sugary crap when they come out of school. What chance do they have to fight obesity starting so young and becoming so accustomed to daily (or more) "treats"

Mmm...how is a child being given 'lots of sugary crap' daily comparable to a healthy lunchbox which contains a mini milkyway?

It depends which view you take...personally my kids view a trip to the zoo as a treat, not a milkyway. A milkyway is just food, which is how i'd like to keep it.

No one with any thought for nutrition would put a Milky Way in a child's lunchbox

That's complete bollocks.

I'm not one to use the term nanny state but I do think it's a bit ridiculous. If anything, we all ate worse 30 years ago and turned out OK.

I've said it elsewhere but I think the obesity problem is down to computers and homework. Basically, teachers (I am one) are simply unable to set homework these days that doesn't need a computer in some way. I'm a history teacher and quite often I've set tasks that would require them to go out and do some actual historical research, but they don't get done because of how much other work they have to do on the computer.

Successive governments have placed far too much emphasis on exam results. That means kids are more than ever not getting to go and play outside. That combined with the tabloids constantly running stories about how every one in the park is a paedo means parents just don't feel right letting their kids be kids.

That's my two pence anyway.

Detailed - could you tell me how a Milky Way provides nutritional benefit?

No but I could tell you how the rest of their lunchbox does.

I can assure you that giving your child a milky way and being concerned for the nutritional benefits of their general diet are not mutually exclusive.

I beg to differ detailed. Milky way is pure unadulterated crap, that crap being included as a standard part of a child's normal lunch, which shows a flagrant disregard for, or ignorance of, good nutrition.

I don't know - don't the experts say that weight is 80% diet and 20% exercise? I just think that there is a balance. A biscuit or two or a small chocolate bar per day if you eat an otherwise healthy diet isn't going to do you any harm. The important thing is your overall diet. If a child is drinking fizzy drinks at home and eating ready meals and lots of processed food, as many do, then banning chocolate bars (but presumably not banning all sorts of other foods like sugar-laden yoghurts or whatever) at school is going to have a limited impact. Besides, they'll just have the chocolate bar when they get home.

Milky way is pure unadulterated crap

I don't disagree, nutritionally.

Some of the cartoons that the dc watch are pure unadulterated crap too. That doesn't mean I have complete disregard for their education any more than giving them a milky way means I have complete disregard for their health.

How old are your dc Grumpy? Have they never had chocolate at all?

At seniors..our school lunches had a 'healthy' side and a fast food-y type side to chose from. The first side was questionable (included some fucking beautiful cakes that I doubt had low sugar in them, I still think about those cakes to this day) and often included very buttery mash, sausages, bacon and such. Other side was entirely burgers (chicken or beef) and fries.

At first break (10.30) the school ran a tuck shop which sold pieces of fruit, crisps and chocolate bars, along with cans of fizzy pop and bottled water. Yet lunch boxes were checked and chocolate/crisps removed? My friends mum had a letter sent to her about the 'standard' of her childs lunchbox. When she was 15 years old...and was pretty much packing her own

And this was like 10+ years ago now.

It doesn't make much sense really. But teachers/dinner staff do not make the rules I guess. whoever does needs to give their head a wobble. Seems to be even worse these days.

This makes me laugh! My son (5) has cooked school meals everyday as not only does it save me time as a working parent, but also, it helps me know he has had a decent lunch as we often don't eat until late and I can sometimes get away with giving him a small meal when we get home.

School dinners are apparently healthy(!), but will always be something and chips, pizza and wedges, something and rice, roast dinners, sausage rolls and then cake, cookie, ice cream for after their meal. They do have unlimited veg, salad or fruit which is good BUT, for packed lunch he can't take yoghurts, sausages, chocolate, biscuits, crisps or anything like a sausage roll for example.

I don't get the double standards!

Kids are 5 and 6. Yes they've had chocolate, and love it. But it's not something I ever buy for them and not something they have often. I make 'healthy' cake, nutritionally packed flapjacks etc which they eat small quantities of and accept that they will be handed out crap at parties, school, etc which I have no control over. I don't limit at parties, or when other people give them stuff, which we accept. I do throw most of their Christmas/Easter/gifted chocolate away and they've never noticed.

I had a shit diet as a child and now have a ravenously sweet tooth. I don't want that for mine. Part of me worries about the whole gorgeing thing but I counteract that by not trying to police that over which I have no control. But I absolutely do support schools in their efforts. Go to school at 2pm and you'll see behaviour and energy plummet in those kids with crap lunch boxes. Sad but true.

And I agree on cartoons too. I'm afrais I'm a tv limiter too. They can watch shit on Disney xd when we go on holiday or to friends or whatever but at home I do police. Control freak? Absolutely. But I genuinely believe it's in their best interests to control what goes into their little bodies and heads while they are too young to make sensible choices themselves.

Unadulterated crap, yes. But one small Milky Way is still a pretty small amount of unadulterated crap compared with the loads of crap that can easily occur in a fairly normal daily diet unless you're a really healthy eater and cook Children's diets can be better improved by their parents feeding them well, not by schools' (or the government's) inconsistent and sometimes highly hypocritical rules.
The government has been trying to tell people what to eat for quite a while now (although many experts disagree with some of the advice). Yet obesity rates seem to have risen, not fallen.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying...energy plummeting at 2pm for the kids that have shit lunchboxes. Yeah, I've seen it too. Including a milkyway doesn't = a shit lunchbox though IMO.

It's not as simple as banning chocolate and sweets.

I've seen a 'healthy' lunchbox include a white bread, plastic ham (one slice) sandwich, a cheesestring, a cereal bar and a frube with one of those 'water' fruit shoots as a drink. No chocolate or sweets or fizz there - that would be acceptable to some of the schools with strict rules.

My kids have a chicken and lettuce wholemeal wrap, a tub of salad sticks, a chunk of brie, blueberries, a natural yoghurt and water to drink...and the dreaded penguin or milkyway.

I know which one i'd rather my kids were eating.

Detailed, your lunches sound fab, and I'm genuinely interested to know why do you feel the need to include the penguin? I agree that in that context though you have yourself a pretty nutritional lunch. I'd bin the penguin tho obvs

I do agree that it's an irony that stricter rules on lunches create that position. But they have to take some steps don't they? I once saw a child with breadsticks, fruit strings, raisins, crisps, chocolate bar and fruit shoot. By intelligent parents. Kid was on its knees an hour later, day after day after day, which they eventually raised with parents. As soon as decent food was included, it was like having a different child. Preventing all this packaged crap, and insisting on sandwiches or bulky carb equivalent, whilst suggesting dairy, veg and fruit, is a step in the right direction surely, even if it does create the odd anomaly?

Agreed Detailed. The issue is these foods are marketed as healthy. Sugar free drinks were even on the food swaps leaflet dd has brought home, which went straight in the bin. So it's very confusing for parents. I wish I'd known what I do now when dd was little. She has such a sweet tooth.

DetailedConfusion I can see my DC friends (7 yo) becoming overweight already, they are the ones we see given lots of chocolate/sugary crap when they come out of school. What chance do they have to fight obesity starting so young and becoming so accustomed to daily (or more) "treats"

Mmm...how is a child being given 'lots of sugary crap' daily comparable to a healthy lunchbox which contains a mini milkyway? hmm

It is usually the same parents who give the chocolate etc at school pickup and I honestly believe that there is no need for chocolate on a daily frequency for a child. I think that everything we eat should have at least a little nutritional value, especially when it comes to a growing, active child.

Totally agree with Detailed. A lunchbox with a chocolate biscuit doesn't equal an unhealthy lunchbox. And, perhaps more importantly, a lunchbox without a chocolate biscuit absolutely does not equal a healthy lunchbox.

I hate so much of the marketed 'healthy' food for kids Mummy. I've always been what I thought was careful about the dcs diets from when they were weaned - all homecooked purees etc. Ds1 was eating a petis filous a day from about 8 months - 18 months. Until I read something online about the sugar content and was absolutely horrified - i'd genuinely thought they were the 'best' for babies because i'd obviously believed all the marketing crap and never really given it much thought. I'm a serial ingredient checker now with everything I buy.

Grumpy - they always have something 'treaty' in their lunchbox. It's often a penguin or a couple of jaffa cakes (despite my milkyway chocolate rant, they never actually eat them!) or sometimes it's a packet of mini cheddars or quavers or a handful of chocolate raisins.

I suppose my thinking is 'why not?' tbh. They eat very little sugar elsewhere...they usually have porridge and a banana milkshake for breakfast (a nutribullet milkshake...literally banana and milk, it's lush), they have a piece of fruit or veg breaktime in school. Lunchbox. Dinner, which is a healthy balanced meal. We rarely have dessert in the week so a couple of hours after dinner (which we eat fairly early) they sometimes have a snack like crackers and cheese or fruit or a boiled egg, followed by a tip-top with 0 sugar. I buy them sweets once in a blue moon...if they're having a treat in our local shop, they beg for match attax generally and not sweets, which is fine with me.

So yeah, I suppose 'why not' is my reason. I think that rather than schools saying 'no chocolate' completely, there could be other 'rules' in place about healthy lunchboxes - the types of proteins and carbs that are acceptable (wholemeal wraps or bread OK, breadsticks not), that a lot of pre-packaged foods such as darilea dunkers and cheesestrings and 'fruit' bars are not advised etc. But that one small treat in a lunchbox is OK - that way, the kid that turns up with a frube, a cheesestring and a fruitstring can have a letter home telling the parents that they've actually had three treats in their lunch which is not acceptable.

Exactly - a chocolate ban seems a bit arbitrary really. I don't see why chocolate is specifically any worse than lots of other things. Sure a big slab of homemade cake might have 'good' things like flour and eggs but it's also probably going to have more sugar than a mini chocolate bar. Besides, there are other ways of including flour and eggs in your diet than through cake. Also I think there is probably an element of snobbery. Homemade treats = middle class and wholesome. Aldi kitkat knock-off = negligent parents. Even if the sugar content is the same.

Yeah detailed, I can see from your posts why it's a tricky conundrum. Maybe banning crap isn't enough. So tough for schools though, it's bad enough having to educate kids with no energy, but educating parents too is a tough call for which you're unlikely to be thanked.

No one with any thought for nutrition would put a Milky Way in a child's lunchbox.

What utter shit.

Want to extrapolate on that reasoned argument sapphire?