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) !

When you're in school, your liberties are curtailed left, right and centre. And I suspect you wouldn't want your child being educated in a school where that didn't happen. You just disagree with the liberties that are being curtailed here.

I cannot get my knickers in a twist over the right to put a Mars bar in my dc's lunchboxes.

Leave the 'treats' at home. Meals are functional, simple as that. Eat to live.

There is a vast difference between a chocolate mini roll and a plum crumble. The key difference is that there is a portion of your 5 a day in one,and it's fresh cooked. The other one is full of crap and additives because it's not fresh, and not a lot else.

My children do have 'treats'. Kinnertons are fab for nut free chocolate. But I dont feel like I need to shove some in DD's lunchbox. It's not a meal. She likes fruit. She LOVES carrots and raisins.

It's a sad state of affairs when a child is teased because they eat normal meals and food. Very for you tmmj.

Bless you FallenMadonna, and I really, really hope that I teach your children

Raising them, and teaching them, pragmatism is not quite all, bit is a lot!

I get quite depressed about the nations eating habits when I read this thread! I have argued long and hard on other threads that sweets shouldn't be labelled 'bad' and a few Easter eggs won't hurt and custard isn't poison! However my argument was that they were fine as part of a balanced diet not as lunch! Healthy eating in school is resisted by many and progress is slow but hopefully it will get there in the end. It is not helped by DCs bypassing it and having a crisp and chocolate lunch.

I am a primary school teacher and agree witht the policing of lunch boxes for the reasonds given. Also I don't teach the children good food bad food - we talk about how to be healthy. ie a little chocolate with some exercise etc

DS's school hasn't ever sent any letters about what can and can't be put in lunchboxes but I have always assumed they wouldn't allow crisps, chocolate or fizzy drinks. He takes healthy things but has a small 'treat' item every day, like a piece of flapjack. It would annoy me if I was told he wasn't allowed this though.

This is the same as i teach my children..everything in moderation..anything can be bad if theres too much!
And i dont think a mars bar is at all the sort of thing that should be in a childs packed lunch.
My kids get, either a sandwich, salad or pasta in the summer, fruit, maybe some cheese sticks, yogurt, love carrot sticks, and maybe an occassional treat, certainly not sweets!
I do usually bake my own flapjacks and fairy cakes so i know exactly what gone in them, that is uaually their treat. With some orange juice or water to wash it down.
And always a proper cooked meal when they get home..whether its a roast, casserole, pasta or whatever. Some kids at my kids school dont get that and i have seen kids with terrible lunches, so i do think there needs to be some rules but it can go too far.

Emj23, exactly! Abbey i agree there, these things on there own dont constitute a lunch but along with a healthy diet and plenty of exercise can be enjoyed.
I am lucky as all mine eat well and always have done and are not the type to spend all day on a games console or in front of a tv, not that i would allow that but they just prefer to be outside playing footy or riding bike.

I think that actually I object to the word 'treat'. Food isn't a treat anymore than it is a 'sin'. It's just food. Nothing more, nothing less. I think either extreme is a bit daft and unhealthy. If not totally bloody stupid.

Ormirian - exactly.

I actually think thats a very unhealthy way to think about food, not a sin! We eat what tastes good, choc just happens to taste good to me and thats my treat!
I think if our children see us eating well and a variety of foods rhen they are much more likely to be sensible about food and be healthy, and on to the next generation

For those with nursery or reception children www.cypnow.co.uk/bulletins/Daily-Bulletin/news/800572/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin
"Sarah Almond, a consultant specialist paediatric dietician involved in compiling the report, said many nurseries had gone too far in banning certain foods such as chocolate or cake, since they hold some nutritional value for this age group, who have a higher need for calories and fat."

I rest my case! Too far..im all fort healthy eating but we also need to let kids be kids!

Mrz - that is funny ! What I don't get is how people think they are 'helping' these children who only ever get fed crisps chocolate and lard on toast by patronising them more and saying they are 'doing it for their own benefit'. I am sure the particularly stereotyped children we are talking about need help in many more important areas, and stopping them having a few bits of chocolate probably is a little optimistic in improving their overall lives.

If you don't like the school's policies (whether it's sponge pudding or banning chocolate snacks you object to) why not talk to the school about it?

Personally, I think there are all sorts of 'freedoms' which we give up in the interests of wider society in our daily lives, and even more so in school.
I'm more than happy with the idea that my daughter should go without processed fatty or sugary snacks during the day, and be surrounded by other children doing the same. If the rules mean that some things like home made cake get excluded too, well maybe that's a shame, but it's hardly the end of the world - plenty of other chances to eat them at home.

And why shouldn't a nursery ban cake? There are plenty of other high-energy foods if children HAVE to eat them at lunchtime (not the only meal of the day!)

If we like we can sit around and feel satisfied that OUR children of course all eat jolly healthily, aren't overweight and get lots of lovely exercise (not like all those others) so it's OK to have chocolate in their lunchboxes. But the number of obese children has tripled in 20 years. 10% of six year olds are obese, rising to 17% of 15 year olds. This is not trivial, and it's a problem we have to face together.

Even if I hope my child continues to eat well and remains a healthy weight, I don't mind curtailing my and her freedom slightly for part of the day if it helps. Lunchboxes are only one issue (I think the fact that children hardly walk anywhere any more is also a big factor) but you have to start somewhere. And if teachers believe it helps them teach more effectively, then I'm all for it.

The point of my post was nothing to do with school policies. I am a teacher and sometimes I'm horrified by the contents of lunchboxes but I was trying to point out what is a healthy diet for a five year old is unhealthy for younger children so much so that some children are suffering from malnutrition because they are being fed "healthy" diets.

I think if they find a child has a lunchbox stuffed full of chocolate and crisps then yes send a letter home to that parent or carer who is feeding that particular child.

Follow it up with instruction on nutrition etc if need be.

The blanket approach just get's everyone elses backs up and rightly so. I agree a mini roll isn't a bad thing as part of a decent lunch.

My dd's school isn't to bad TBH. They ask you not to put in chocolate or sweets but crisps and cakes are ok a few times a week. I save the chocolate for hometime she enjoys it more. I give her sandwiches, occasionally pom bears or quavers and 2 pieces of fruit. I'm very lucky that both my dds will eat several types of fruit, although dd1 refuses to touch vegetables.

Sorry to cause confusion mrz - my point about school policies was to the o.p.

I agree that small children need more high fat foods than older children or adults, but I think the number of children genuinely malnourished by overzealous 'healthy eating' is almost certainly tiny. Whereas we only need to walk down the street to see the scale of the opposite problem.

I don't think it's realistic to expect schools to pick out individual children - much easier to have a simple rule that applies to everyone.

I also don't think that denying children sweets makes them crave them. The children who eat most chocolate are the ones who are allowed to.

Foodfiend talks sense I think.

I do have a vague urge to shout 'hypocrites' though. The school I work in has a ban on sweets and chocs in lunchboxes yet step into the staffroom and there are more tins of biscuits etc than Sainsburys. And I don't doubt that most schools are the same.

Our school has a 'free' lunch box day each Friday, when junk food is allowed.

Friday is fish/chips and steamed pudding day for the hot lunches, so the head decided it would be hypocritical to keep the ban on junk food in lunch boxes on that day.

All other days the following are banned:

canned & fizzy drinks (we don't say low sugar as most fruit juices are high in sugar);
chocolate bars;
sweets;

Nuts (certain teachers aside ) aren't allowed in school at all.

All children have fruit/veg snack once a day (provided free).

Nursery/Foundation classes have free milk once a day.

We have a free breakfast club as well. A variety of cereals on offer and toast, fruit juice or milk.

I love our school.

I also think think there is a big difference between "malnourishment" which to my mind adequately the low vitamin and mineral content of many children's crisp and coal diets, and "undernourished" in which the child is getting adequate nutrients but maybe not quite enough calories. Malnourishment appears to lead to all sorts of long term irreversible health problems whilst undernourishment manifests as extreme slenderness (also sometimes present in children with perfectly adequate diets in all respects) can easily be corrected by eating more. There is a BIG difference to my mind, and the two situations should certainly not be equated. As someone said, undernourshment due to over-zealous healthy feeding is exceedingly rare in this country whilst malnourishment is commonplace.

typos: adequately describes

crisp and cola diets. Obviously. Who in their right mind would feed their child coal???