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?

I think your experiences affect your view naturally enough. None of my family or the grandparents have ever been overweight or had any form of food issue. We eat when we’re hungry and stop when we’ve had enough - sometimes a bit earlier as we’ve all been educated to understand that it can take a bit of time for your brain to register that you’ve had enough.

I was brought up to believe that no foods are bad and everything in moderation. We all naturally opt for a healthier diet and restrict low and processed food types as that’s what we’re used to and feel best eating. Food issues are often inherited. We’re all relaxed about food.

If she is starving at 7 then a later tea /or a small supper before bed might work and then breakfast 730/8 depending when leave for school

7am my dd is still fast asleep and some days have to wake at 745/8 - like today. So had a quick B and walked to school 25mins later at 8.25

I get what you are saying about being hungry but often hungry is thirst

many kids can’t tell the diff and if have B and fruit they should manage to cope till lunch

so does she drink lots of water ?

kids didn’t used to have constant snacks inbetween meals and the 3 basic breakfast lunch tea

kids should be able to survive a meal at 7. Fruit at 10 and lunch 12 ish

if your dd has to have B at 7 then maybe she can munch on a slice of toast /bagel /dry cereal /cereal bar on way to school

agree with the poster that kids won’t keel over if feel a little hungry

or up her snack and 2 x fruit so banana and grapes - or pineapple and strawberries

At least your school does snack. Ours don’t. I don’t think she’ll starve

I’m proud to have raised my children to research things from reputable sources and follow the science - and to ignore rules that are not fact and science based, surreptitiously if necessary!

Institutions like schools have to impose rules that work for the lowest common denominator. They won’t work for everyone.

This is the problem with parents and schools these days. School absolutely does have the right to dictate food your child may or may not eat while at school - so long as government policies, safeguarding requirements, medical needs, reasonable adjustments for disabilities etc are all taken account of. Same as they can dictate what the uniform is, when your child can go to the toilet, what items they can bring onto the premises, what sport they do in PE and all sorts of other things. It’s the reality of mass education that there have to be rules and those might not suit all the children and parents all the time. School isn’t going to prioritise the minor preferences of your particular child over the best interests of the entire cohort.

If you don’t like it your options include making appropriate representations to the headteacher to change the rule (which I doubt will happen given it’s a common and normal rule with sensible rationale behind it), finding a different school with policies you prefer or home education.

I agree largely with the PP. You follow the school rules. It’s a bit hypocritical of me I admit since the middle child did have a surreptitious digestive occasionally in loo if she felt faint, but it was surreptitious! ‘Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue’. I felt that her being able to work effectively was better than going hungry and feeling faint and she really looked and felt awful when hungry - a very slight child.

I think you sound obsessed with your own child, with no appreciation of the fact that a school has to cater to hundreds of other students. Plus completely lacking in self awareness- malt loaf is cake!

The school has every right to police what is eaten on its own premises and some are far more strict. There are schools where all snacks and packed lunches are banned and eating a school meal is compulsory. There are schools which only serve vegetarian food. They don’t do this for shits and giggles they do it because they think that’s what’s best for the children. If you don’t agree, move schools.

Plus in most cases schools have tried a light touch approach and seen some students sent in with a McDonalds or cold fish and chips plus coke and a mars bar. What do you suggest in these situations? You have control of your childrens’ food choices for 90% of the time (when they are at home), but at school it’s their rules that apply and for you to work with them.

Former school leader here. Schools are obligated to facilitate healthy eating. However, I think I might agree with you in part. Fruit is not very filling and is heavily implicated when it comes to tooth decay and IBS! Also, since it is so sugary, I’ve always thought it sets off a rollercoaster of ups and downs to blood sugar that can make children more cranky, tired, explosive even. I remember, as a child, swapping my apple with another friend’s bag of crisps.

What’s the answer? I think there’s probably something you could do to get round the whole fruit debate by making sure her breakfast is as satiating as it can be. Maybe it’s time to go a bit more traditional with boiled eggs, some porridge, peanut butter, cheese on toast. It’s the protein and fat that is massively satiating. Eggs are the best food. So many nutrients, including those that are good for brain function.

I think it's a shame that schools have to put this kind of thing into place. I think it's a poorly thought out approach to say just fruit.
My kids were both sporty, slim and ate a good diet. They didn't need their snacks policed by some well meaning snack supervisior.
Sadly, so many kids are sent in with junk food but this could be monitored without disadvantaging those who are already eating a balanced and nutritious diet.
I agree with the OP. If she has a sporty child who is slim then they are already eating appropriately and malt loaf is actually a perfect snack.

I couldn’t agree more.

The reality is that if your DD’s breakfast is so filling that she wouldn’t manage anything else before school, she is hardly likely to be starving by break time. And having some fruit will go some way to making her feel less hungry even if it’s not what you would choose in a perfect world.

Saying it doesn’t work for my children and my children are being penalised indicates that you really don’t understand mass education. Stipulating fruit for a mid morning snack is hardly revolutionary and has fewer drawbacks I would say, than stipulating that children can bring anything as a snack. Yes, your child doesn’t get what you would ideally like them to have for their snack but she gets something healthy and there’s a lot to be said for that.

And please stop saying that your child is starving when she’s had a good breakfast with a piece of fruit later on before her good lunch at midday. She’s still a bit hungry even after eating some food that’s all.

Yes children need snacks. No it’s not good to be hungry at school. This is weird.

I agree and actually what if your child wants veggies? Or something high fibre? Fruit is high sugar and other than bananas I agree it’s not particularly filling and for many children fruit may cause upset stomachs. I’d struggle to find a fruit other than bananas that wouldn’t make my reception child needing the loo right after which is why they have veggies and other good food sent to school but fruit we eat at home. The UK is weird about food policing tbh and I’d hate this.

I’m a really health-conscious person but I hate this kind of food-fascism when children are involved. As a teacher I was aware that some children, who’d had no breakfast (not through deprivation but because they didn’t want to eat so early) went through till lunchtime with empty stomachs because they didn’t like fruit. You can imagine how receptive these poor children (with zero blood sugar) were to any form of education.

Fgs - children are different from adults- they need calories for energy AND for growing. It’s cruel to deny them a biscuit or a little piece of cake at break time. What is some do bring a Mars bar? No-one’s going to die - they’ll use that energy.

Of course, the school could monitor things and if an obese and inactive child did this frequently that might merit intervention.

It’s fruit or veg at our school. DD likes to have carrots.
DD has breakfast at school most days so not until 8am but on home breakfast days she has eggs as that keeps her going.

I think it’s a good idea, you just need a bigger breakfast.

Sadly, so many kids are sent in with junk food but this could be monitored without disadvantaging those who are already eating a balanced and nutritious diet.

Could it?? Who would do this? How on earth would the practitioner gifted with this no -win job decide which children already eat a healthy diet when they have no exposure to what is rated at home?? And how would that work? ‘Oh Felix you’ve brought in flapjacks today but that’s fine because you are deemed to be from a ‘healthy family’ but Fiona, you need to hand over that flapjack because your family often eat a lot of chips so you must have an apple’. I’m being facetious but really and truly schools don’t have enough time to teach the things they’re supposed to teach without all this nonsense.

sugar and hyperactivity myth busting https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-hyperactivity-myth

At my primary school in the 80s we weren’t allowed any snack or drink (except water) at break times. Breakfast at home before school and then nothing until lunchtime. Nothing after that until we got home.

It’s a wonder we survived really!! None of us ever seemed to mind/ struggle as a result.
There was milk at morning break when I first started school but Margaret Thatcher scraped that.

WTF. The craziest thing I've ever read.

Well I have personal evidence to tbe contrary. My kids go crazy after sugar. They have adhd so its likely linked to the dopamine hit, but it has an effect and not in a good way.

I think you’re overreacting, she’ll be fine without the malt loaf. Humans can sustain themselves on fruit for breakfast without major side effects. As an adult I still skip breakfast even as I’m used to doing that from a child, yet still managed to turn out okay in life.

What really annoys me is that the school try to dictate what we give as snacks whilst providing shit ultra processed most days school dinners. My kids get tonnes of fruit and veg outside school. But its the hypocrisy of it that annoys me

I agree.

Mine get sent in with vegetables and a dip, I've made it clear to the school that they're all fruit avoiders but love vegetables and they need something filling. I'm all for the healthy lunch and snacks rule but not every child likes fruit!

Bear in mind schools answer to Ofsted or the independent schools council dependent on their set up. This always comes from some sort of guidance a school has to follow.
Porridge for breakfast maybe? Cereal with some protein?

My generation, I am approaching 70, is not the obesity generation, that came long after us. The idea of snacks just didn't exist in my time growing up. We had an orange after school and a chocolatete bar at the weekend. I don't think there was money for snacks anyway outside of main meals. And those portions were tiny compared to today!