To think it’s a bit unreasonable that children have to have fruit for school snack.

[MyLittleLove1]

DD’s school have sent a reminder that parents must send their children to school with a fruit snack for morning break. They will not be allowed to have anything else. This is to encourage healthy eating. I do understand this, but my daughter has breakfast at 7 as she is starving when she wakes up, and feel that a piece of fruit isn’t really that substantial for a snack. She would normally have fruit and a snack like some malt loaf. I feel a little against this also because there is so much to having a healthy diet. Many foods are healthy and make a great, filling snack. Why are we being policed on this? Or am I BU?

Tell her to wait for breakfast. She isnt a Baby. She can wait until 7:45 or later.

Give her a banana for snack.

Why are kids constantly snacking now. There was no snack time, no water bottles - we had a drinking fountain in the playground when I was at school. I survived.

What does she have for breakfast? If its cereal, I'd look at changing that to something more substantial. A higher protein breakfast will keep her fuller for longer.

It’s only half an hour. Her breakfast should be substantial enough that fruit is filling to tide her over until lunch.

Give her a massive porridge for breakfast

Blueberries and strawerries out of season are very expensive. I couldn't afford that on a daily basis.

I agree there are other healthy snacks, but allowing anything healthy would be much harder to enforce, and lead to arguments about where the line should be (eg. If chease & crackers are OK, why isn't mini cheddars? And if they're OK, why isn't crisps). It would end up taking a lot of teacher time to manage.

Is it fruit? is an easy yes or no rule to implement. It also has the added benefit of keeping snacks more equal so there's not a noticeable difference between the kid with the fancy snack, the kids with the cheap apple and the kid who brought nothing and has been given something by the school.

They have this at my daughter's school. She skips snack rather than take one. The fruits that both transport well and that she will eat are very limited. Then she says the carrying around of the pot is a pain and she's a slow eater so says she'd rather just go hungry and wait til lunch. She used to like the fruit yoyos as could eat as much as she felt like then put back easy enough or just bin when done but they aren't allowed now, probably because they are similar to sweets on the teeth really when you think about it! I get why they do it though as all sorts go in otherwise and they aren't too strict over lunch boxes - which is a blessing as she's fussy there as well! We keep trying at home to broaden her palate but I just give her what she'll eat for school.

‘Snacks’ is a bit of a modern obsession. They don’t really need one at all. It won’t kill them to go a few hours without eating.

A banana is more filling than say an apple. My dcs didn’t like cereal so had cooked breakfast, usually booked eggs and whole meal toast or omelette and baked beans, fills you up longer.

I think fruit is fine but I’m sick of school policing kids diets. Yes I appreciate some kids may have shit parents who don’t feed them a healthy diet but that’s not school’s problem to solve. They are there to educate. All seems pointless anyway as when they get to high school all manner of junk food is freely available

Fruit only is a simple, easy to understand rule so I get it.

Your child isn't going to starve without a snack

I think fruit should be filling enough as a snack for a child who has had breakfast. The thing that would worry me about this is that fruit is expensive compared to other snacks. What about the people who are struggling financially?

Yep. Encouraged by the food industry over many years solely to sell us more of their UPF crap and increase their profits

I was at school in the 70s and 80s and we all had a mid morning biscuit.

I can assure you, your child is not starving in-between breakfast and lunch.

An apple is expensive?

Or just don’t bother, let kids bring what they want, and teachers stick to their job of teaching?

Did other people really not eat at morning break growing up? I went to primary school in the 1980s and we had a tuck shop every day. Far from being healthy, it was like Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory comprising entirely of sweets and crisps. I don’t remember anyone having fruit. We also had milk of course.

Like a lot of school rules it feels like a sledgehammer to crack a nut (which you aren’t allowed either and actually make a decent snack).

I know, when did snacks become such a thing? I don't remember ever having one, no kids did when I was growing up. Humans are not supposed to be feeling continually full.

An apple is what, about 30p? A banana is less. You wouldn't be able to buy a packet of crisps or small bar of chocolate for that. Unless the snack is one digestive, that would be cheaper.

Another vote for snack on the way in then fruit at break. From a school perspective fruit is much easier to police than "healthy snack" which at DDs school encompasses cereal bars, fruit and nut protein bars, winders, vegetable crisps, fruit, chapattis, stuffed mini naans. It's a nightmare for the staff as they need to check everything for nuts and other allergens.

No, we didnt. We had lunch. No snacks.

I wish!

I might not have left the profession if this was the case.

Why not give her a boiled egg ? or porridge in the winter .TBH I think an apple or Banana .some grapes or strawberries in Summer should suffice .If she starts School at 9am. and has a break about 10.30, then Lunch 1.pm that should be fine .It's to help teach them to value fruit, rather than a chocolate bar or pack of crisps really.My Son is in his 20s but a similar rule at his primary school .

A banana is perfect.