To think other children's snacks are irresponsible?

[cowgirljoey]

The official policy at DS's school (Year 2) is for them to bring a fruit or veg snack from home for break time. This seemed to be what happened when DS was in reception and Year 1, but over time DS tells me that his friends are regularly bringing crisps, chocolate bars and sweets in for their snack(s) and that he is one of the only ones who has fruit/veg each time.

Totally get that this needs fact-checking (I have a few reasons to think is is accurate), but if it is AIBU to think this is something I should contact school about? I don't think it's fair on the kids to be having junk food as a snack, and I've observed myself that lots of them eat barely any of their school lunch, suggesting that they aren't v. hungry at this point (understandable if they've had choc/crisps an hour beforehand). I think that parent are being irresponsible to be giving chocolate as a daily morning snack, but as I have no control over this, AIBU to think that school should be enforcing the fruit/veg policy?

Snacking is unhealthy. It doesn't matter what it is.

Normalising snacking is the problem.

DS won't eat anything in school. So if he has a chocolate bar at school I really don't care.

What boils my piss is him being told that he can't have it at snack time when he's allowed it for lunch, he hasn't eaten it for lunch and then ends up going all day in school without any food at all.

All because of a fucked up 'healthy eating' bullshit which is actually encouraging poor eating patterns and labelling foods as good/bad which can trigger eating disorders when actually 'in moderation' is a much much better message.

Any parents seeing what DS eats / doesn't eat in school might be horrified. Doesn't mean they could get him to eat better in school. Nor does it mean they have a bloody clue what he eats at home, which is probably far far better than most of his peers because he won't touch beige and doesn't eat processed food (tbh I wish he bloody would somedays).

I really wish they'd ditch snack time altogether. The kids don't need it and the parents who profess their child does, are revealing a lot. The only reason you might need a snack is if you have type one diabetes. Otherwise it's just poor training for later in life.

Countries which don't have a snack culture don't have an obesity crisis to anywhere near the same level. Therein lies your issue. Newsflash to the health eater brigade - all food contains calories, the more you eat the bigger the issue, so don't eat when you don't need to and waste your calorie intake.

The 'easy' option is to allow snacking at all.

Just give the kids proper meals at lunchtime and understand that some kids aren't being fussy because they are spoilt, they are being fussy because they are ND and in those cases their dietary needs might be less than ideal.

DS will try new food, he's weird like that, but he won't go near fruit (we now think that's related to allergy so he is having a physical reaction to some and that's put him off) and we are struggling with veg. He's getting there, but the harder we push the more avoidant he becomes.

It is pointless to offer five fruit and veg a day as the recommendations (which are actually founded on surprisingly little and pretty bullshit tbh). Variety of food and avoiding processed food is much more preferable in terms of health.

Eating three meals a day is a social construct and there is no reason why our eating should necessarily be structured this way.

Some people will do better on more frequent, but smaller, meals. Some people will be healthier on two, or even one, large meals a day.

Young children are much less likely than adults to eat a sufficient amount in one meal to keep them going to the next without getting hungry, which is why it is generally recommended that children have three meals and two snacks a day. Hungry children cannot learn effectively. Would you really want a reception teacher to have to deal with a whole class of 'hangry' 4 and 5 year olds as lunch time approaches?

There is nothing wrong with snacks and eating between meals, so long as the content is healthy and the overall amount is appropriate.

And while I do think if schools have a "healthy eating" policy, they should enforce it, ultimately it's part of a parent's job to say "no, just because Max/Asa/Arlo has a chocolate bar/haribo/cake for their snack doesn't mean that you can have it too... Yes, it's so unfair. Life's unfair - get over it". Putting up with pestering is part of being a parent - if your kids are the type who pester you, they'll just be pestering you about something else if it's not snacks.

which is why it is generally recommended that children have three meals and two snacks a day.

i can bet that's NOT what is recommended in other western European countries which don't have an obesity issue on the same scale as the UK.

Its like pregnancy 'rules' which vary enormously throughout Europe. It's recommended based on not a lot.

Just like the 'five a day'.

It's cultural belief rather than actual science to a much greater extent than we are willing to admit

There's absolutely nothing wrong with healthy active kids, that don't have a weight problem, eating a couple of biscuits, even chocolate biscuits, or a packet of crisps as a snack. Not every day, and fruit and veg are an important part of a balanced diet. But this idea that all snacks have to be fruit or veg is utterly stupid. Healthy kids can cope with and benefit from a sugar kick!

I don’t think you should phone school about other peoples children. How do you know that these parents can only afford to buy a pack of 6crisps in Tesco for 82p vs a tub of 6/7 strawberries max for £2.50.
this could be a money issue and aslong as YOUR kids are eating what YOU would like them too, what other children are eating is none of your business.

Regardless, that is what the NHS and nutritionists recommend for young children... 3 meals and 2 snacks per day.

And I get a bit bored of people banging on about the obesity crisis as if it applies to all children and therefore no children need or should have snacks.

Children are individuals.

Your child may or may not be overweight/obese and contributing to the UK's obesity crisis - I have no idea. It may be appropriate for you to send your child to school without a morning snack - if so, you don't need my permission, crack on.

My child is underweight for their height. Their morning snack is a key part of their carb/protein intake and ensures that they learn effective. We also don't have time to make big breakfasts here as I have a baby to feed/get ready as well in the morning

You do what works for your child and I'll do what works for mine.

The thing is , it's never everyone bar one, be it snacks,uniform or any other school rule.

You actually have a majority of kids following the rules or as close as possible, a couple of kids that have adjustments ,either permanent or temporary, for whatever reason and a few more where either the kids (if old enough) or the parents are pushing the boundaries. Those few kids (in most cases it's less than a third of the class) that are the focus and suddenly it's translated into the whole class.

Honestly op. Don't be that nut job. Some kids who have very limited diets can get dispensation , you won't know what's been agreed. Tell your ds that what other parents allow is none of his business . All you will get from the school is a eye roll and a reputation.

It's a stupid policy and you should let it go. You don't know the circumstances for those families. Some crisps at snack is not going to cause obesity.

Why do you care what other children eat ? Also as an adult I don’t mind fruit very filling and have this along with some protein / carbs as a snack.

If I were being uncharitable, I would say: "No, you do not have a responsibility towards my child. They are not "members of the same community" they simply attend the same school that is all. What justification I might, or might not have, is not your concern."

I am sorry but you are not coming over as the concerned individual that you seem to think your are OP. I would leave this well alone.

I would agree , this is OFSTEDs guidance , although I’m not a fan of OFSTED - I do agree with this , and settings should be complying . Tooth decay, obesity, being under weight, having sugar and salt levels that may create later health issues. Seriously I was born in the late 60’s and my parents smoked in the house in the car , that was considered normal, we are all shocked and appalled by this now days . Same applies to food .
see the link below
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-food-standards-resources-for-schools/creating-a-culture-and-ethos-of-healthy-eating

Those are some very cherry picked foods to prove your "healthy food is expensive" point. I say this as someone who's been broke btw had my eldest at 16 lived in hostel and worked minimal wage, not looking for sympathy just saying so you don't accuse me of "privilege". You can't get a 6 pack of crisps that cheap anymore not last time I checked. Somebody could say the opposite of what you've said ie "a whole bag of carrots is 50p while Ferrero rocheros are a fiver" I'm rambling here but hope it makes sense?
Basically my point is saying you're broke isn't an excuse to give a kid loads of chocolate and junk food instead of a proper meal

Tesco’s Stockwell crisps are currently 82p for 6 packs.

The school should enforce healthy eating , a no crap policy . All schools have free fruit for snacking in primary education , so no cost to the parent. stop giving your children rubbish , there’s no no need to . And stop sending your kids with juice , it’s rubbish for their teeth and not good in hot weather …. Water … is the answer . Simple

Our school have the same policy.

my kids have asked me why I give them fruit when their friends have chocolate and crisps etc.

I respond by telling them that they are having fruit, and that’s it. Then I go along with my day because there’s worse stuff happening all the time and I don’t have the energy to worry about other kids having unhealthy snacks, if they’re not going hungry then great.

Who do you think you are the food police?

OP on first reading your post I genuinely thought this was a joke thread.
YABvridiculouslyU
I agree with other posters upthread, I really feel good choices are part of responsible parenting. I'm sure the majority of people provide their children with the best that their budget and time allows. Unless there's an obvious issue it shouldn't be for schools to dictate the contents of a child's lunch (allergies aside).
Obviously you maintain your own habits with your own family, but it's massively overstepping to be raising this with the school, to a ridiculous degree. Have you got any idea the pressure teachers and schools are under currently? I think it's a tall order for them to be expected to adopt food police type of monitoring too.
The other glaring issue here and on similar threads is the poor understanding of many who honestly believe it's good practice to ban entire food groups for children who are grieving and developing. Natural sugar is a requirement, fruit is an essential part of a fully rounded diet and holds a wealth of nutritional and immune boosting benefits.
You're also grossly overlooking the limited budgets so many families are forced to exist on currently-over Easter holidays we saw record numbers of parents accessing council/charitable daily lunch schemes as that's the only way they had of ensuring their children ate lunch.
Yes society needs to broach health promotion, how food retail works, we also need to consider how these things may be accessible to all so everybody has the ability and education to make the best food choices. We have a long way to go. Maybe invest some of your time into looking into ways and methods of improving these as a positive contribution to society instead of expecting schools to manage every single aspect of education and parenting.

Actually no they don't. DD had to bring her own snack in starting ks2.

cowgirljoey
Having the policy encourages parents to send healthy food. Some will disregard it. The school probably prefer to not be battling with parents over this and want to build positive relationships. Newsflash when your child reaches Y7, secondary schools do not give a shit and your dc will be buying whatever crap they can. It is brilliant that you are following the policy. Let's turn it round. School has a rule that kids must read 20 mins a day. Some parents don't do this. School has a uniform policy. Some parents don't follow it. It really is not for you to decide how the school responds to parents who send in these snacks. Just like it would not be up to you to police reading records, uniform or anything else.

Perhaps fresh fruit is a luxury for them?
Stop judging!! Would you like being judged?
Yabvu

I couldn't get too het up about this. Our school doesn't allow any home lunches or snacks at all. Everyone has to have school lunch and school provided snacks.
My dd friend brings whole pots of Pringles in sneaked under her jumper.

Unsurprisingly she's obese. None of my business tbh. I tell my dc to mind her own business, don't eat stuff that's not hers and that's that. How much more could the school manage this?!

Cherry picked?? Did you read the original post? It was literally about crisps etc being given In Place of fruit

Point proven. Thank you