to want SOME control over packed lunches?

[kinderfool]

DD's (6yo) first day back at school today and she was a bit nervous about her new class so in her packed lunch, besides her drinks bottle, ham sandwich, a plum, piece of cheese (proper cheese not cheese spread or something) and a box of cherry tomatoes (at least 10 or more), I put in a Kinder egg (a massive treat for her) to cheer her up.

Comes to pick up and she'd had a reasonable day but was anxious to tell me she'd really wanted to eat her egg but hadn't been allowed. Checked her lunch bag expecting that she'd tried to eat that first and been stopped but after checking first and asking her, found out she'd eaten every crumb of everything else and had one little bite of choc before the TA watching stopped her. And it wasn't as if certain things aren't allowed, there's no nut allergy notifications at her school, and no set down rules about what can/can't be brought.

Now I completely sympathise with the need to crack down on kids who get a lunch of Coke, crisps and chocolate AND would completely understand if it was the toy they'd objected to (but dd was told by me she could eat the egg but not to even open the toy bit, to bring it home with her instead and knowing her she'd have repeated this parrot-style to the TA), but this just seems completely overboard for the first day.

As far as I can see, what I sent her with is a balanced meal so as long as it stays that way it should be of no concern to anyone else what I want her to eat. Plus she's a skinny little thing (thanks to never staying still) so the very last thing I need is someone putting ideas into her head that it's only ever acceptable to eat uber-healthy foods.

AIBU to, in a very polite and reasonable way, tell the TA to keep her nose out?

In Sweden nobody brings their own lunch; they all eat together in the canteen. No puddings, no sweets. Menus sound a lot better than here, and it's free. I am sure this must have some influence on obesity, the fact that all children eat basically the same, basically healthy meals every day. It isn't compulsory, but seeing that it's provided free, not many parents are going to be prepared to send in extra food.

Hi sorry I'm new to this . I'm having the same problem with DS who is 5 . I put a penguin bar in his lunch box along with 2 pieces of fruit a sandwich and a small bag of crisps. He came home in tears on Monday saying that the Dinner lady had said that he couldn't have chocolate in lunch box full stop!I spoke to the receptionist at the school who said that it was fine aslong as its a small choc biscuit . The dinner lady on the other hand the following day sent me a letter home reminding me that i should not put choc biscuit in lunch box. Who is in charge here dinner ladies or the school office ??????

what on earth is wrong with pudding or chocolate? why do we have to be puritanical about this? what is wrong with enjoying oneself sometimes? my children's school doesn't ban anything in lunches, only asks for fruit to be taken in at snack time. A diet consisting wholly of chocolate would of course be a bad idea, but having some as part of one's lunch for an energetic child is a good idea.

" I also have to disagree quite violently with the notion that just because something appears to be for the good of the majority (making children eat better) that it is, therefore, OK to ride roughshod over the fundamental principle that individuals have the right to exercise choice over their own lives."
And there I was hoping Thatcherism was dead

"But the welfare state is largely based on the idea of majority benefit, and yes that does mean the loss of some individual freedoms"

Does it really, nooka? Can you give an example of individual freedoms that can justifiably be curtailed for the benefit of the majority?

I always thought of the welfare state as being something that everyone who can contributes to (in taxes) and that everyone who needs it benefits from - nothing to do with individual liberties at all.

I think we could all agree that it is not a good idea for a drug addicted prostitute (for example) to have a child. We don't actually forcibly sterilise anyone, though, do we? So obviously some things that would contribute to the greater good are, nevertheless, beyond the pale. A line must be drawn somewhere and for me, dictating what food a parent provides for their child is on the wrong side of that line.

(Disclaimer: exaggeration for emphasis, not a suggestion of equivalence)

Thatcherism, clemette? Do you seriously think that?

HAven't read the whole thread but interestingly in response to a comment on lunch boxes and what is or isn't acceptable DCs school replied that whilst they encourage healthy choices through the curriculum they didn't think it was their place to dictate what the contents of a lunch box should be. The policy certainly worked on ds1 who still checks his lunch box to check all the food groups are represented! Healthy lunch box awards are also very hotly contested with kids keen to beat the competition.
However where there is a different demographic schools might have to take more of a lead.

Well the fundamental restriction is that there is no choice about paying for the welfare system. Then there is no choice about education - it is compulsory for all children. Justice systems restrict individuals free will by imposing and enforcing law. Public health includes things like general fortification of bread with folic acid to reduce the incidence of neural defects, only of value for pregnant women who don't eat enough otherwise, or water with fluoride to protect the teeth of those who don't really look after them, vaccinations are largely about population resistance as well as individual protection (with the assumption that the occasional adverse effect is justified by the general benefit), etc etc

Many decisions are taken because the costs outweigh the benefits on a population basis, because government makes decisions about the populace, not the individual. Of course their should be a balance, but there is always much debate (and academic disciplines too) about where that balance should lie. Take a look at some of the screening debates for example - although they tend to be more about whether the larger harm caused by many people taking the test in question (and follow up examinations for some) and being anxious is worth the benefits of earlier diagnosis to what tend to be fairly small groups in comparison - perhaps more a more appropriate for this debate I guess.

What kind of parent argues for their "right" to feed their child junk, FGS. If you really feel your children are missing out by not eating salty sugary snacks with no vitamins then give it them at home. I also see parent feeding their children these things on the way to school, maybe you could do that.
I give my kids treats on a weekend, they know this is the rule and don't expect it or think their missing out if they don't get it. They eat what their given and enjoy it.

Yes but flopalong, why should I give a treat on a Sunday rather than Monday? No one on the thread has said they want to give their children junk food. If you understood that you misread a lot of posters. What the "defenders of chocolate" are saying is they do not want to be treated like criminals because one in a while for a reason that is their own want to give a treat to their child on a school day.

A home made cereal bar/flapjack is considered as junk food in my DCs school, we are not talking jelly beans and boiled sweets, we are talking ANYTHING SUGARY banned from lunch boxes while school lunchers are allowed a pudding! We all agree that junk food is not good for our DCs but we are asking for the right to BALANCED food. I will (if the thread is still going) write the probably longest post in the history of MN. When we get the school menu I will write it down on here with in paralele what I give to my DCs maybe then you will understand how ridicule the whole thing actually is!!

flopalong - it's not arguing for the right to feed junk,it's arguing against the idea that some foods shouldn't be allowed in whatever quantity just because some people are uneducated/lazy enough to give their kids too much of them.

I was talking about chocolate, which I feel is perfectly acceptable as part of a balanced diet, and actually has quite a few vitamins in thanks, especially B vits. Of course I'm not trying to cover my dd's vit requirements using choc but the assumption these things have no food value in any way is exactly the problem. Good quality crisps with low/no salt are the same issue, they're better than some chips, which are often served with school dinners! I see much less point to sweets, especially ones which are JUST sugar and e-numbers but again, if eaten in decently small quantities they won't automatically result in obesity etc.

It's not that I want to stuff dd full of 'junk' at all, and I appreciate I have plenty of time to do that out of school if I wanted to. I want to give her a balanced diet for every single meal, not a balanced diet at home and then a ridiculously censored meal at school. That sends out the completely wrong message, that some foods are 'bad' and, as others have said, could undermine parents too.

Food is not solely about nutrition and I think it's a bad idea to start sending that message to kids, it's about balance and variety - otherwise we'd all eat whatever was most nutritious and have the same meals every day. I don't even agree that chocolate and crisps should be seen as 'treats', I see it as that when I give it to dd because that's how I was brought up and even now I can't shake that association but I never say that to her, all she knows is sometimes she gets chocolate, sometimes she doesn't, in the same way sometimes she'll get mango, most of the time she won't. She knows she can't eat loads but there's many foods she can't eat as much of as she'd like (as I said before, she'd eat strawberries literally from morning to night if she had the chance). As one example, I put grated 90% cocoa dark chocolate in things like chilli and spag bol - not because I'm desperate to shove junk down the family but because it's JUST A FOOD!

Sorry, I'm sure I've wittered but that's the bit that winds me up the most - that because some parents don't know how to give a generally balanced diet (so need the attention spent on them, not given to everyone else) then the rest of us have to put up with being told some things are 'bad' or 'treats', don't put in the packed lunch, etc etc. A trip to the park or £1 for the money box is a treat - something you eat is JUST food!

Actually I understand perfectly, that the schools are over the top with healthy treats too. I just don't see why you need to make an issue of it with school. I wasn't suggesting everyoneone should wait till the weekend to give treats. If you want to give them on a monday then do it after school. Don't send it in if you know its not allowed just to prove a point, its not fair on the kids. My kids get cake with their school dinners (not packed lunches) but they are very low salt and sugar, shop bought one are not

Who is talking about shop baught things? I made clear in my previous post that even home made flapjacks/cereal bars are not OK with my DCS school policy. I will carry on making my point actually. It is not unfair on my children at all, quite the opposit actually as I am fighting for them to have exactly the same right as children on school lunches, nothing more !

The thing is, its not about the parents who do know, it's about the parents that don't. There are parents who think a bag of pop corn is a packed lunch (not you before you get all defensive). Like I said, if you want to give them treats (healthy and homemade or not) theres plenty of time for that at home. Are they allowed a lump of cheese, thats got alot of calories in it or a very big banana. There has been lots of issues raised on the thred, so can't be bothered to look back through them again. Is the issue, lack of choise for you, equal choise for your children (I don't think its fair the school dinner kids are allowed cake and not the packed lunch kids) or your children not having enough to eat due to lack of time and or choice of food options. The OP was about a kinder egg not a healthy flap jack (I think you could suggest that they make a treat day that falls on the same day as cake and custard day)

Flopalong, if "it's about the parents that don't know", then spend the money/time/attention on teaching them what the rest of the parents already know.

And if you can't be bothered reading the whole thread, please bear in mind that you might raise a point that has been made - and answered - already.

Nooka

"there is no choice about paying for the welfare system"
If I don't earn, I won't pay tax and thus won't contribute. It might not be very accessible as a choice but it exists.

"Then there is no choice about education - it is compulsory for all children" True but I could move schools, pay for private or home educate, if I choose.

"Justice systems restrict individuals free will by imposing and enforcing law". Giving your child chocolate or sweets is not against the law. Yet.

"Public health includes things like general fortification of bread with folic acid to reduce the incidence of neural defects, only of value for pregnant women who don't eat enough otherwise, or water with fluoride to protect the teeth of those who don't really look after them" I can bake my own bread there is no fluoride in the water where I live (nor will there be as long as the population have a say in the matter).

"vaccinations are largely about population resistance as well as individual protection (with the assumption that the occasional adverse effect is justified by the general benefit), etc etc". Vaccinations are voluntary and I suspect the MN would lead the popular revolt if that ever changed.

I think, MsHighwater, that there is no better definition of Thatcherism than what I quoted. Don't kid yourself that you are anything other than a right-wing individualist!
As for the above - have you ever considered moving to the States - they have whole communities there who barricade themselves against the "evils" of the Federal government. And I suspect you would find a lot of common ground with those who are currently raging against having a "national health system" "imposed" on them.

PS Just for accuracy - VAT contributes to the welfare system so unless you buy almost nothing/produce your own energy you might struggle.
PPS Vaccinations are not ALL voluntary - in some professions they are mandatory. Plus, if you wanted to move to som places abroad. But that is just me being pedantic.

clemette, we'll have to agree to disagree about what my political views are, won't we.

Your argument amounts to saying that individuals who want to pursue a lifestyle other than that approved by the state as being best for the majority should be forced to conform. There is a name for that world view, too...

You don't need to be coy - Communism is not a swear word.
You exaggerate your claims of course - I don't think everyone should conform (I think you may need to follow your own advice and read what I have written rather than assuming everyone who disagrees with you is saying the same thing), I think people should choose their battles. If you waste energy and ire on whether your little angel should be able to have EXACTLY what they want whether it benefits others or not, how are you going to find the energy to oppose things like the nuclear deterrent and the rise of the BNP.
Or you could keep wringing your hands about the "thin end of the wedge" like my DM-reading MiL does. Personally, I know which battles I would be proud to fight for my children and which ones are petty and isolationist.

ONe of the problems with a school introducing 'lunchbox police' is the fact that the people charged with doing the job are quite often ill-informed about nutrition anyway, and will accept things like Dairylea Lunchables because, after all, it's got ham and cheese in it, and yet veto a home-made flapjack. This is not entirely surprising given that being a school dinner supervisor is a job with about the same status and pay as being a checkout operator, so expecting them to have dietetic or nutritionist qualifications is a bit much.
It's also true that school meals up until recently did a fair bit to contribute to poor public health by serving up all manner of crap to children, the main factor in menu planning being 'how cheap can we get it?'

clemette, I will choose my battles. They might not be the same ones you would choose. But I'll appreciate the freedom to choose and will fight for that right if it is threatened.

For now, the issue is academic as my dd is not at school yet and, so far, I have no reason to believe the school she will go to will be daft enough to impose such a rule. But, if it came to it, I would fight this battle because (and at the risk of repetition) I believe that:-
a) blanket bans are a blunt instrument that will do little to educate parents who do not know how to feed their children healthily,
b) bans tend to promote the idea that certain foods are "bad". This is inaccurate and does not foster the healthy attitudes to food that underpin a genuinely healthy diet, and
c) permitting schools to set rules for parents on what they must feed to their children especially, but exclusively, when the school does not follow its own advice, tends to undermine the authority of parents. This is a bad thing.

For the sake of clarity, I know nothing of supply side economics, I think that the policy giving people the right to buy their council house has, on balance, been a negative thing and I am a passionate defender of the NHS. And yet, I still believe in individual freedom. Go figure.

"especially, but not exclusively, when the scholl does not follow its own advice" that should have read.

"school", even

Bottom-line is..I choose to feed my children healthly (some may say not healthy enough!)some do not and tbh forcing or victimising parents who don't conform doesn't help their children..they will still be fat as hell (if they actually are)..but why?...because their parents are not taught to feed them with moderation perhaps?.....I put a home-made flapjack/brownie/shop brought choccy bic in my DDs packed lunch should I be sent a note home?/fined/sent on a parenting course?..does the odd brownie make you fat?...or numerous brownies etc everyday?..I don't believe in the vilification of certain foodstuffs..thats creating another problem surely?

parenting classes should be mandatory for all parents, they are helpful if people give them a chance, well if people give things time to work. If you think you know enough already (like me and erm you) then go along and share your wisdom.
If you think educating parents would help then ask if you can set up a club to show parents what healthy food is, and what portions should be like.
I have updated myself on the thred as I said I am not reading them AGAIN, I just don't get what your issue is, well I think I do.
Is it a you can't tell me what to do issue?

I think parenting classes could benefit all parents esspecially food based ones..i suppose it's about implementation,but also about taking into consideration different cultural,social,monetary,traditional and seasonal aspects of eating...but above all it should be non-judgemental and helpful to parents...