To have some sympathy with the "Jamie Oliver Burgers through the fence" mothers?

[Fridayfeeling]

We got a letter home earlier this week asking not to put crisps, chocolate, sweets in our children's lunchboxes.

How about you Fu*k off and mind your own business - a mini roll never killed anyone (especially as part of a balanced diet) !

and why does a treat have to be shite food?

what message does that send to people?

if you're 'good' you get shite food as a reward.

oh, wow! that's just the relationship i want my kids to have with food.

Children with SN related feeding issues excepted, can't understand why this would be a problem.

Some parents would only give their children crisps, chocolate and sweets, and while chocolate is lovely, it isn't actually a food that will sustain you throughout the day. Other children have allergies. Anybody can go without these foods for a few hours. Give them the mini roll after school.

Mumma- I know you meant in the lunchbox.
And I posted that it wasn't necessary to have a choc treat at lunchtime, which I still standby.
A mango could be a nice treat too

The school my son is due to go to is just like that - it's a little bit bohemian - no uniform, they've been serving organic food for years, all the kids have long hair, and they police the lunch boxes too and take out sugared drinks, choc etc. It's also the best school in the South side of our city. To be honest, it's not normally how we live but I'm all for it. It can only benefit my son's health to eat better and not think every meal has to be followed by a sweet treat.

My 8 year old told me last week that he was getting the piss taken out for eating celery and sliced red pepper for lunch, instead of crisps. Then there are the other kids who don't even know what celery is and bug him about that.

It's maddening as hell that i'm doing my job providing a healthy lunch, yet my son gets grief for not eating shit food... Thank god he genuinely likes veg and wants to continue eating it..

Message withdrawn

My ds's school also has a strict policy concerning packed lunches, and it makes packed lunch children wait until every child wanting school dinners has been served before they are allowed to eat their lunch. On slow days, this means that they have very little time to eat packed lunches and often miss the first part of lessons.

Basically, the school wants everyone to have school dinners, which is why they do this, but then they don't apply the same rules to their own food. My ds has school dinners and he has either a cookie or a piece of cake (often with chocolate sauce) for pudding every day. How is this fair when packed lunches aren't allowed to bring these in?

How is a chocolate biscuit an unhealthy treat? It might be unhealthy if chocolate biscuits are the only thing you eat.
I am also not convinced that sugary foods make children hyper. It has never had that effect on my children or any of their friends that I've seen. Perhaps it does affect some children that way but not every child.
While I think it is a good thing to be educated about nutrition, I don't think it's as black and white as 'good' foods and 'bad' foods.

juuule - Can you look at this [[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/5015/479807?stamp=080411141118 thread] about molar pregnancy

here

I hate the way schools force children to eat lunches really quickly, like little savages.

Healthy eating is every bit as much about how you eat food as well as what you eat.

I have been on other threads saying that parents need to lighten up about chocolate, and that I think bad/good food is counter productive, however I don't see the need to have chocolate as part of the lunch. If you really don't want them to do without it give it as a snack as soon as they get home.If every DC had a lunch box free of crisps and chocolate it would be the norm and they would eat it if they were hungry.

We never had crisps and choc in our lunch boxes in the seventies. I don't think it ever occurred to our parents to give us that, as it was considered treats, not food. They just gave us food.

I wouldn't call either crisps or chocolate lunch foods.

the E numbers in processed snack foods DO affect some childrens' behaviour, juule.

and what's wrong with giving them a chocolate biscuit at home if that's what you want?

why does it HAVE to be at school.

what, they can't go a few hours without crisps or biscuits?

don't like the policy, then homeschool, change schools or go private and do what you want.

otherwise, schools have to legislate for the lowest common denominator to protect their own interest and comply with policy.

so be it.

it's not the end of the world that kids can't go without crisps and sweets and chocolate for a few hours a day.

and yeah, how about not treating food as a 'reward' at all?

that's how people get hooked on emotional overeating and 'comfort' foods.

here's a concept, how about rewarding behaviours with NON-FOOD items - you know, like, your time, a book or magazine, a day out somewhere, an activitiy.

nah, that would require more effort than a KitKat or a bag of crisps.

I think the thing about sugary foods causing bad behaviour is not entirely proven, but the links between additives and hyperactivity are quite clear.

Bella - 'I hate the way schools force children to eat lunches really quickly, like little savages.'
Agree absolutely. The scrum to get to the cafeteria in time to actually have time to eat lunch is far too common. There should be a legal minimum requirement for the time children will get to sit down and eat for.

Expat, I wasn't talking about 'e' numbers and chemicals, I was talking about sugar.

I can't believe I look as though I'm defending putting sweet stuff into lunchboxes everyday. I'm not. I am fed up of the gov't through schools dictating what I feed my children and when. If it's okay for me to give them the chocolate biscuit when they come home, then why not a lunch time?

Fwiw some of my children don't eat chocolate at all and one won't eat crisps, they don't like them and would prefer a banana.
I was also tut-tutted at by the dentist for putting raisins in a lunchbox. Rots their teeth.
So who decides what should be eaten and what shouldn't and when rather than how much?

the government dictates all kinds of things to us, juule.

a lot of it i don't like.

well, it's put up or get out, though.

if i don't like it, i know where the door is.

schools have to do this because, as you read below, believe or not, PLENTY of people send their kids to school with nothing but chocolate bars.

so when parents refuse to take responsibility for bringing up their kids, the government has to step in and do it as they see fit.

and we all pay the price for it.

so instead of getting angry with schools for doing this, why not direct anger at the lazy excuses for parents who make it necessary?

Expat you've saved me having to type it out-agree with everything you've said

Don't think kids should be having crisps, choc and sweets every day, IMHO they are treats.

I was a primary teacher and believe me you wouldn't believe the crap that appears in lunchboxes. It used to brake my heart. There are so many lovely things you can send that kids love to eat and aren't full of crap.

As Expat says you want to feed them stuff that makes them high as kites then give it to them at home and cope with the subsequent aftermath yourselves. It's hard enough teaching a class of 30 5 year olds as it is, without an intake of rocket fuel at lunchtime.

It's kind of sad if a child can't go without crap even for just during a school day.

A long time ago we did the same ban but at playtime at our school and we didn't have one complaint from the kids, they all managed to find something they liked to bring even if it was just a piece of cheese. We had loads of complaints from parents before we switched which was interesting. I think the gov are spot on if they are driving this,for once they're probably actually listening to teachers.

When I read the OP I fully agreed.

I have now read the whole thread and changed my opinion.

I still don't like being told what to do, but understand why, and agree that not giving sweets or chocolate in a lunch box is a shame, but really does not matter.

I do agree that my OP was really aimed at the "please don't tell me what to feed my child" however I do think there is a very dangerous connotation of all chocolate and sweets etc being BAD, and I can't see how that will help children understand what a balanced diet is - forbidden = tempting, especially if it tastes so good.

So, for me banning it totally means that it is elevated to a more 'cool' status and that is dangerous. Whereas a mini roll once in a while takes this element away.

Yes you are. If you (had) volunteered before this letter went out, you would have noted that the least healthy, most overweight and unwell kids are also the ones with ONLY crisps, chocolate, jam sandwiches & fizzy pop in their lunchbox. Of course a few crisps from time to time do not harm them, but if the way to ensure that some childre do not ONLY eat these things (and some do for breakfats too) is to ban them from school, then so be afaic.